Creating outstanding products and programs to win marketplace is not an easy job. Specialists in marketing have to develop comprehensive research plans, carry out market researches, analyze the data collected and finally come up with marketing plans that target specific consumer segments. Finding out about human psychology, their preferences, choices and appeals are not only difficult but at times disappointingly inaccurate. Yet marketers today consider themselves experts in such endeavours, and are capable of achieving the almost impossible marketing objectives. 

As if these aspects of marketing are not difficult enough, in modern-day marketing field there is a niche in which the marketers have to deal with children. The most difficult task is perhaps the determination of the choices and preferences of these fickle individuals who are still developing, absorbing the environment and learning to become like their adult counterparts. The task of marketing to children is not only daunting but also critical for many businesses such as Nike, Microsoft, Johnson & Johnson, Disney, Pepsi, Sega, Kellogs and Mattel to name a few. These companies go through extensive research and consultancy to get to the untapped market of child consumers.

One such example is evident in Dan S. Acuff and Robert H. Reiher’s (1998) Youth Market Systems. According to the authors the development of outstanding products and programs to win children's marketplace is entirely different from the rest of the market segments. For this purpose they invent a marketing process called Youth Market Systems. The System ensures marketers consider all aspects of marketing to children or teens for any category of goods or services that companies want to sell. There Isa great need for a system of analysis and interpretation as the authors feel that information pertaining to cognitive, emotional and social needs of age groups could transform the programs or product features that target them. Acuff and Reiher's (1998) strategy merely opens a window to the world of advertising to children. As one investigates the categories of products and services that are available to young children, one also tend to develop the consistent belief that children are a separate kind of consumer group and must be treated differently, from advertising to the designing of products.

All these efforts no doubt are valid and justified in their own place and position, however a niggling thought crosses the mind when one observes the various approaches and efforts that marketers adopt to reach out to the vulnerable youth consumer segment. There are reasons for these tactics. Acuff and Reiher record approximately $1 billion annual gross revenue for Mattel Incorporated that sells Barbies. There are others such as Garfield, He-Man, Cabbage Patch Kids, Power Rangers, LEGO, GI Joes and a myriad of upcoming products invading the market with the sole purpose to tap on these young consumers who are bound by childish emotions and penchant for toys and games. Schemes and strategies are being devised to win over these young consumers for highs takes amounting to billions of pounds.

What is more, advertising and marketing to children does not only involve the youngsters but their parents also. For example the Youth Market System identifies parents, grand parents and other close family members as the most influential on children’s purchasing decision. Exploring this group is critical because they are the ones who have control over the wallet and it is on them that children are dependent. The complexity in children marketing therefore lies in attracting both the youngsters and appealing to the parents. A winning formula must be developed to attract both the parents and children. The complexity of this formula makes success rate low which induces marketers to resort to all kinds of schemes and strategies to achieve their desired target, including crossing the line of ethics especially in the field of advertising of children related products (Acuff and Reiher 1998).

Scholars and parents alike feel that there are no avenues that advertisers and businesses will not exploit to reach to the young consumers. Exploitations through mental, moral and physical developments of children are common. The strategies to target children involve creation of wants to satisfy the impulse rather than actual needs. For example consoles such as Mattel's Hot Wheels, and Barbie’s fashion collections are not really required by children but wants created by advertisers and marketing campaigns. Long term needs satisfaction has been replaced by short term needs. They are not the only ones exploited. Their parents are also plagued with different kinds of created needs for their children such as the well being; status symbol; and their selfish need to have their child preoccupied with the multitude of products and free them from child responsibilities.

These aspects portray not only the ugly but also the unethicalsides of the world of advertising. How true are these aspects and towhat extent do advertisers reach to capture their target consumers? Dothey cross the borders of ethics or not to maximise gains from avulnerable consumer market? And what, if anything, should be done tocontrol and ultimately restrict the freedom of advertising aimed atchildren are some of the areas that the following research willendeavour to enumerate.

Children have become the key target for many advertisers. Childrenare vulnerable, easy to exploit consumers and they perceive things asadvertisers want them to perceive, or so many of us believe. Despitethe fact that children are nowadays smart and knowledgeable of themarketplace nevertheless for many marketers they are relatively easy totarget due to the sheer size of the children's consumer market.Advertisers thrive by earning billions of pounds with the backing andfunding of the profit seeking organizations that hire them. Thesecompanies are not only producing goods that appeal to the children butthey are also exploiting their parents. The dual targeting approachmakes this market segment attractive as well as representative of highyield for investment. For example in many regions of the worldincluding the US, Europe and Japan, companies are investing billions sothat they can capture and tap the youth market segment but at the sametime they are also reaping billions in return. Advertisers andmarketers are entrusted with the task to achieve sales targets bygenerating desired actions from the segment. The wide appeal hasmotivated many professionals to enter and adopt whatever means andmeasures to achieve their targets. Ethical implications surpasses but afew in the field of advertising that target children. For these reasonsthe authority, lobbyists and parents are demonstrating their concernsregarding the impact of media and advertising on children. Thefollowing literature review will first outline why and how children aretargeted, followed by a review of the kind of ethical implicationsadvertising and the media has on children. This will be followed by anexploration of the measures that are being taken to counteract theproblem, if any.

Advertising to children has not been an issue until recently withthe boom of the media. More and more parents are concerned about thelegal controls that the authority levy on advertising criteria as mostare concerned about the kind of tactics advertisers are using toinfluence children for the sake of maximizing their profits. Forexample Bejot and Doittau (2004) note that pornography, cigarette andtobacco related, alcohol and other products prohibited for children arebeing promoted on television freely without restriction. Advertisementmessages for these adult related products are tailored for adultconsumption but due to the appeal of mass viewership and the higherprofits, the advertisements are aired during children televisionprimetime. As a result the advertisements expose children to contentsthat are not meant for them. Had that been the only case then the issueof advertisement would not have been so controversial.

Research suggest that children between the ages of 6 and 14 years oldwatch about 25 hours of television per week in the US and they areexposed to 20,000 commercials in a  year (Moore and Lutz 2000).Children at this age are vulnerable because they are developing a senseto comprehend and evaluate messages in the environment. Stimulatedmessages on television not only have a harmful impact but they are alsodetrimental in persuading children to develop wants for products thatare not meant for them. According to Moore and Lutz (2000) "Beyondadvertisements, children gain marketplace information from the productsthey encounter, advice from friends and relatives, and their ownconsumption experiences. Through consumption, children learn whatproducts are good and bad, whether advertising claims are truthful,what brands they prefer, and even products that convey social meaningsapart from their functional properties." For children the experiencesthat heighten their importance in their social circle and the adultworld have the most meaning. They do not have the ability to counteractor check on the viability or the authenticity of the message initiallywhen they are young as they are dependent on adults for explanatoryinformation accessible only through print media. By the time childrengrow to the teenage level the functionality of literacy diminishes tobe replaced by their desire and need to fit in their social life.Without consideration for product usefulness or content, childrendevelop wants for products beyond their pockets and reach.

Similarly, children are also exposed to advertisements for fashionproducts that are actually designed for adult consumers but they areoften "condensed" to tailor to the younger audience with the purpose toinclude the young consumers in the marketing campaigns. For this reasonchildren develop receptivity for fashion products without the requiredinformation for decision making.  Moore and Lutz (2000) recognize theimportance of children's advertising and its impact on young audienceby revealing that children are receptive to advertising demonstrated inexperiments of relation between ads and products. They write:
"Research investigating children's receptivity to televisionadvertising has studied what children understand, under whatcircumstances they are persuaded, and how their responses evolve asthey mature (e.g. Macklin 1987; Roedder 1981). Drawing extensively oninformation processing and stage models, researchers have gainedsubstantial insight into the development of children's cognitive skillsand their deployment during ad processing." (Moore and Lutz 2000).

Their research indicates that children are at a stage where they aredeveloping cognitive abilities. Advertisers vie on this susceptibledevelopmental stage by targeting the "limited processors" of childrenthat have not yet acquired efficient information processing strategies,a fact that may be reflected in their inability to distinguish betweencentral and peripheral content in message learning." (Moore and Lutz2000). They further this idea by writing that at the stage of ages 8and 12 children are susceptible to information that are stimulated andthat target the vulnerability of the strategic processors.  Because atthis age group children tend to spontaneously employ efficientinformation storage and retrieval strategies. They organize andretrieve information based on available information and stimulus.

"Unless their knowledge of advertising is expressly activated by such acue, these children tend not to think critically or generatecounterarguments spontaneously. They may also neglect to differentiatebetween central and peripheral content when learning new information.When there is an appropriate cue in their environment, however, theyare likely to retrieve and use relevant information." (Moore and Lutz2000).
Therefore children may develop recognition mechanism on how advertisingshould be viewed but that is dependent on external factors likeparental guide, government policies or other mediating channels.Evidence suggests that there is substantial amount of influence on thisage group when they are not guided in the preliminary stages inunderstanding the intent of advertisements. Research reveals thatsignificant guidelines must be levied before children rationale anddeliberate on the content of advertisements shown on television."Advertising is thus implicitly accorded substantial power to shapechildren's thinking until they acquire sufficient cognitive andattitudinal defences. (Moore and Lutz 2000).

Other than the cognitive development impressions on children,advertising also influence them to take actions. In a study by Smithand Swinyard (1982) on consumer behaviour and response towards producttrials offer through advertisements suggests that "because consumersknow that advertisers wish to present their brands in a favourablelight, they react to ads by partially discounting claims and formingtentatively held brand beliefs and attitudes. In contrast whenconsumers have direct usage experience, they form stronger, moreconfidently held brand beliefs and attitudes. This phenomenon has beenobserved in a number of studies with adults" and may be consistent withthe case of children. The same expectations is held with regard tochildren advertising as researchers are of the opinion that with age,the capacity to form brand opinions tend to be more among olderchildren. For example children of age groups 10 and 12, and 12 and 14year olds tend to tell the truth and more likely to be scepticaltowards the institution of advertising rather than blindly acceptadvertisement claims.

According to Michel Bejot and Barbara Doittau (2004) childrenadvertising are dynamic and highly appealing. The authors are of theopinion that children are the key target for advertisers because brandpreferences in this age group remain unchanged for a long time.Children remain loyal to the brands they are used to yet at the sametime they have growing pockets to afford more expensive items as theygrow older.
The above aspects indicate that children though are smart andknowledgeable to sceptically evaluate and experiment with productsthrough advertisement claims they are also aware of the fact that theseadvertisers' claim may not be true. At this point it is arguable tonote that some school of thoughts separate the vulnerable youngstersfrom the smart young consumers who have the cognitive ability tocritically examine the advertisement claims and disregard them if notproven true. According to Robertson and Rossiter (1974) "if ads presentinformation different from a child's actual experience, confusion mayresult and trust in advertising may be determined. Conversely, otherssuggest that until children actually experience discrepancies betweenproducts as advertised and as consumed, they are unable to fullycomprehend advertising's persuasive intent." For this reason Moore andLutz (2000) claim that advertising use frames for product trials knownas transformational advertising in which adult consumers are drawntowards the products prior to advertising exposures by asking them toparticipate in the process of experimenting and interacting with theproduct with the view to interpret, evaluate and subsequently formtheir experience impressions. The expectancy or discrepancy frame setsare formed for comparison of later product trials which help indetermining discrepancies or consistencies of product qualities. Mooreand Lutz (2000) present the testing paradigm to show that rationalconsumers are clever in testing advertising claims of productperformances. Testing paradigm enable them the opportunity to evaluateand form opinions. Children, on the other hand do not have the samereaction or taste for distinguishing discrepancy in the same manner.

On the other hand Siegler (1996) believes that advertising and producttrials have different effects on children's capacity to integratemultiple sources of information for consideration. Young children tendto engage in one-dimensional thinking pattern and rely on multipledimensions for a given task. Integration is imperative for childrenbecause they are dependent on this integration processing ofinformation for forming perceptual domains and consumer behaviour. Whenyounger children are presented with information it is encoded andstored in the recesses of the mind, and whenever needed retrieve it forevaluation. Information integration is basically combining newinformation presented in the media with the old information, andcomparing the two. Disparate media information result in discrepancy inexperience. This in turn results in loss of trust in advertisementmessages.

Not all children however are wise enough to discriminate information.Moore and Lutz (2000) believe that age differences differentiateexpectations and credibility of advertising. They write "Youngerchildren have been found to hold more positive attitudes aboutadvertising, to be more likely to believe its claims, and to be lesslikely to understand its essential purpose. Thus, among youngerchildren advertising's credibility is not likely to arise as a concern,and they are likely to perceive both advertising and a product trialexperience as believable sources of information." (Moore and Lutz2000). Clearly, this statement identifies with the fact that youngerchildren are more susceptible to advertising and they are prone to takeactions without critical evaluation. For older children advertisers maynot integrate strong expectations about a brand and instead focus onthe stronger results to generate confidence in product usage (Fazio1986).

Alternatively there are groups of advertisers who vie on the physicalhabits of children. For example one of the most invidious techniques isto use junk food in advertising for children. The use of celebrities toendorse these foods without any consideration for balanced diet orfitness is common in the industry. "In the UK the BBC which is fundedby licence and tax payers, received around 32 million pounds in 2001for franchising its Tweenies characters to McDonald's - the FoodCommission found that the Tweenies products were high in junkelements." Despite this fact the UK government continues to allowbrands such as Cadbury's to market its products and launch campaignsthat have negative effects on the physical health of children. Theseefforts are designed to generate more profits and not the publicinterest. They are aware of the fact that the lack of exercise coupledwith high calorie food result in obesity and other related diseases inchildren. The rate of obesity has doubled in the past 10 years from 8.5percent to 15 percent among children under 16 years (The Lancet 2003).Yet advertisements continue to infiltrate the media and other channelswith the objective to vie on children.

Children have long been recognized as the target market for manycompanies due to its economic potential. Recent estimates by Moore(2004) indicate that children and associated markets account for 24billion dollars of direct spending and it has an additional 500 billiondollars influence over family purchases. Children are considered to bepotential gold mines for campaigners and advertisers alike. Televisionchannels and the print media as well as companies are constantlyengaged in complex "product placements, sales promotions, packagingdesign, public relations, and in-school marketing" activities with theview to reach out to children and their parents. Given the timechildren spend in front of the television, on the Internet and mediagadgets, marketers realize that children form a huge consumer base for"toys, breakfast cereals, candy and snacks" etc. For this purpose thereare more and more commercials on television to induce buying preferenceand action. TV commercials especially are being developed to inducechildren to purchase and participate in programs promoting cars,fashion, cell phones and other such adult related products. Accordingto Moore (2004) "At the root of the children's advertising debate isthe question of children's unique vulnerabilities. Concerns about youngchildren range from their inability to resist specific selling effortsto a fear that without benefit of well-developed critical thinkingskills they may learn undesirable social values such as materialism”(Macklin, 1986 qt. Moore 2004). Her view is also affirmed by Acuff andReiher (1998) who indicate through their study that children aresusceptible to advertisements because of the extensive measures andstrategies adopted by the advertisers. Their study reveals thatmarketers devise winning formulas to gain the confidence of children bysending out messages that winning children are those who are associatedwith certain brands. These may be Barbie, He-Man, Teletubbies orSpider-Man. Identification and association are the keys to the winningformula.

The success rate of the winning formula depends on how deep an impactthe product or brand has through the advertisements. These aredeveloped based on the knowledge of the development of the mind of thegrowing consumers. The product leverage mix is formed based onqualities that are demanded by children such as characteristics of ahero, power of a character and/or qualities of the product. The productleverage matrix is a comprehensive model formed for analyzing the needsand wants of the young consumers and a guide to allow marketers to havea look at the bigger picture.

Once the matrix is determined the medium, concept, content, context,process, characters or personality, and attitude or style areestablished. Elements to be noted include: What is the psychologicalpoint of view of the target audience? What are the visual and verbalcontents that will be used for the product? How marketers will form thecontext of the advertisements for the target audience and the kind ofprocesses that will be involved to create an interface for interactionwith the potential consumers? Character association or the use ofpersonality to denote product quality is also common in the designingof the matrix etc. (Acuff and Reiher 1998).

The marketers are also aware that young children are intelligentindividuals who exercise their developing cognitive abilities byassociating qualities with certain images. For example Bugs Bunny is aclever rabbit or Kellogg’s Pop Tarts are fruity flavoured etc. They areable to associate as well as distinguish between products andcharacteristics of the products. Identifying the points of differencefrom the children’s perspectives is critical but not impossible. Acuffand Reiher (1998) also note that these are assumptions that adults makeregarding the preferences of children such as teens wanting moreenergy; identifying with hero athletes; wanting great taste or newproduct names. Yet at the same time they also warn the marketers that:

"...more often than not these assumptions are left unexamined as toveracity and strength. It's an important practice to check assumptions:check what the leverage actually is, and its relative power versus whathas been assumed. More often than not, adults make erroneousassumptions about what kids perceive to be important and powerfulbecause adults are looking at their product or program through adulteyes. It is critical to get at the actual leverage rather than theassumed leverage. With the above hypothetical Enerjuice example inmind, adults may be surprised when testing directly with kids' focusgroups reveals that the new product's blue colour is its most powerfulpoint of leverage and that the majority of kids tested dislike the newname." (Acuff and Reiher 1998).

The basic premise in such a condition is that marketers need to ensurethey give promises and fulfil them too thereby gaining competitiveadvantage. This kind of positioning helps them to organize andcategorize products in the mind of the targeted consumers. In the endhowever, the marketers must realize that it is the bigger picture thatneeds to be satisfied - that is product leverage matrix. At the centreof the matrix are the crucial elements that should not be neglectedsuch as gender, stage, age, structure, dimension, style and pastexperience. The consumers are at the end of this list and are the mostpowerful deciding factor that can make or break their products. Theyconclude that "Successful products and programs are those that satisfytheir needs and wants in the short term (impulse) or in the long term.While a colourful and involving Trix cereal package with a maze on theback provides for short-term needs satisfaction, Mattel's Hot Wheelscars year after year continue to provide young boys with something theyneed and want -- small, easily manipulability, colourful minicars thatare fun and involving to play "cars" with (Vroom! Vroom!) And toaccumulate and collect." (Acuff and Reiher 1998).

Children advertising have attracted legal, scholars and parentalattention. Proponents of the children targeted marketing andadvertising argue that the financial backing that children programs aregetting derive from sponsors who make programs on television possible.Advertising to children are therefore motivated by profitability.Furthermore they also argue that these sponsors target a separate nichemarket of children of age group 12 and 14. Advertising provides themwith product information and does not really provide stimulus aschildren in this age group are more like adults with their specificideologies, attitudes and behaviours where preferences of products andservices are concerned. They have been exposed to persuasive messagesfor a long time and can distinguish persuasive messages from empoweringones. Thus they are product and advertising savvy.

On the other hand opponents such as parents and consumer protectiongroups argue that advertising directed at children are not onlyunethical but they are also manipulative stimulants that promoteconsumerism in children from a very young age. Advertisements createwants and poor nutritional habits that induce children to pesterparents for products that are harmful for them (Berlger 1999). Theiropinions have been affirmed by Acuff and Reiher (1997) who suggest thatpreschool children at two and three years old tend to identify withfrequently seen images and therefore would be attracted towardsspokes-character in advertising and marketing. The desire to see thesecharacters and related products they see on television, packaging andpromotions induce demand for the same among children. According to DelVecchio (1998, p. 225), "The objective is to select an effective pieceof advertising that will break through clutter, communicate the name ofthe brand, its key feature and benefit, and do so in a cool way thatwill elicit a child's request." Those advertisers are successful whosuccessfully use innovation, meticulous marketing, planning and massiveexposures in their key characters according to Schneider (1989).

The ethical dilemma enters the scenario when one refers to the degreeand extent of the use of stimuli. Research indicates thatspokes-characters use role play and features that would relate animatedwith human characters and thereby influence children's attitudes(Chebat et al 1992). The issues surrounding the use of advertisingcharacters to children stem from the fact that the characters arecommoditized without consideration for its impact on the children.Without regulations, advertisers tend to deviate from the conventionaluse of these characters. They treat children and adult related productsalike. That is perhaps the reason why Cross (2002) indicates that therehas been a rise in restrictions on tobacco advertising during the 1990sto curb tobacco companies from targeting children by the use ofspokes-characters in their advertising and marketing campaigns.

In this context advertisements have a deep ethical impact on thecognitive and development of growing children and the authority needsto recognize this fact. According to Roedder (1981) children arevulnerable and fail to utilize cognitive plans for storing andretrieving information. The categorization of processing deficienciesstem from the child's inability to use the actual strategies and aidsfor storing information in the memory. Limited processing capabilitiesin young age group especially induce children to learn throughmemorization and are not capable of using tools for separating,segregating and processing information according to utility. Insteadthey use information incidentally. Television uses fast pace visualgraphics and audiovisual medium to influence preschoolers and aroundthat age group. The effects become consistent when children areregularly exposed to these audiovisual images so that they becomeimprinted on the minds of the young children (Alwitt et al 1980).Animation and other stimulus have double impact on the informationprocessors of children. As children become receptive to advertisementsor images that are regularly shown they come to recognize it in theirdaily experiences.

Once the images are imprinted in the targeted group’s mind it is easyto generate brand recognition through triggering keys which may be inthe form of visual or audio effects. Spokes-characters such cartooncharacters have this essential effects on the children. "Studies havefound that young children often discriminate between products on asimple heuristic of whether one particular quality (which may includebrand name or character) is present or not" (Rust and Hyatt 1991 qt.Neeley and Schumann 2004).

Another aspect of advertisements is that children tend to associatewith the characters and brand that they prefer. Instilling a brand inchildren’s minds is easy when spokes-characters are used to define thequalities of the products. For example in Bahn's (1996) study four andfive year olds proved to be receptive to product characteristics byinferring spokes-characters. Bahn gives the example of cereal boxes.Boxes with cartoons are associated with sugary and sweet cereal meant"for kids" while those that do not have cartoons are bland and notsweet, and are meant for adults. This logic for cereal preferences andchoices indicate that advertisements with their logos, characters andcartoons all have a great impact on the minds of young children in thisage group.

While Bahn's example seem harmless whereby advertisers are merely usingthe characteristics and qualities of products to appeal to the youngconsumers, Fischer et al's (1991) example raises ethical dilemma. Intheir study the researchers asked children ages three to six toidentify logo brands with the appropriate product. They observe thatchildren tend to associate the Old Joe character with cigarettes. Thisassociation has been developed through the inference of the Cameladvertisements that uses Old Joe a cartoon character for brandpersonalization. Hence, the researchers conclude that regardless of theintentions of advertisers and marketers, the effects of advertising onchildren are inevitable.

Yet there are arguments against this view by psychologists such asPiaget (1929). This group of individuals are of the view thatpreoperational children between ages two and seven do not reallyprocess information logically or abstractly. They rely on processingstrategies such as “transductive” to connect between thoughts andreasoning and therefore not susceptible to the underlying qualities.They may understand simple expressions of but have difficulty inassociating it with product differentiation. Consequently Neeley andSchumann (2004) write:

"While research findings show that young children can exhibit highlevels of character/product recognition, association, and affect, thechallenge arises when we assume that these early responses lead toproduct preference, intention, and choice. Recognition, association,and affect are manifestations of simpler cognitive processing abilitiesthan preference, intention, and choice, and research supports thenotion that these simple abilities would be present in children asyoung as two or three years old. More advanced cognitive abilities arerequired for the later behavioural stages of preference, intention, andchoice because these responses require a child to position one item(e.g., brand/product) relative to others, something that a child maynot be able to do until four or five years old, at the earliest.Therefore, we should expect to see inconsistency between attitude andpreference in very young children."

This view is affirmed by Moore's (2004) who writes: "Among the mostbasic tenets of this research is that younger and older children differboth in terms of their general understanding of advertising's purposeas well as in how they deploy this knowledge when responding tospecific advertisements. To evaluate advertisements, children mustacquire at least two key information processing skills. First, theymust be able to distinguish between commercial and non-commercialcontent. Second, they must be able to recognize advertising'spersuasive intent and use this knowledge to interpret selling messages."

Nevertheless their views are pervasive based on the cognitive abilitiesof children whereas the reverse is also true. For example the attitudesand preferences of children are based on the knowledge they get fromthe environment and hence affect behavioural product choice throughassociation, recognition and liking (Henke 1995). Even productfamiliarity and the elements of brand preferences are influential onchildren when they are constantly exposed to the same brand and imagethrough the media. The relational link between children and images isbasically through the media that they frequently watch and experiencesthat consequently appeal to their knowledge processes and preferencesif the advertisements are directional (Neeley and Schumann 2004). Thuspowerful voices and actions in spokes-characters are influential inyoung consumer reactions that may be negative or positive. Sincechildren cannot distinguish between fantasy and real life sodistinctively, they tend to take the qualities, the claims and themessages in advertisements for the truth and are greatly influenced bythe persuasive approach.

To resolve, political lobbyists are aiming to formulate policies torestrict advertising to children. In the UK and EU especially theauthority realizes that advertising to children not only affect theirbehaviours and attitudes but also may prove to be harmful to them intheir development. The concern is that the broadcast media and othersuch mass media should not promote harmful advertisements to children.According to Stanbrook (2002) "controversy arising from children's TVadvertising occurs when the advertising is perceived as countering orresisting the moral, ethical or social values held by public opinion asgenerally interpreted by proactive interest groups or campaigners." Thecampaigners need to explain why advertising to children in print orother non-broadcast media are harmful and why the restrictiveregulations should be implemented or otherwise. The issue at hand isthat the UK government has been showing leniency in its approach torestrictive policies as evidence in this statement by Janet Anderson(former UK Minister of State in the Department for Culture, Media andSport) in a letter to the Advertising Association:

"... a ban on broadcast advertising to children ... would be at oddswith our approach to the regulation of broadcast advertising whichrelies on effective systems and procedures overseen by both theindustry and independent regulators to safeguard the public interestand to ensure that the mental, moral and physical development ofchildren is not harmed."  Thus in actuality there are no clear plansvisible that the authority intends to levy strict regulations andrestrictions on advertisement contents despite the fact that there is adegree of consensus within the UK on the issue.

Stanbrook (2002) also notes the adverse effects of collateral actionthat are being taken to support the BBC. For example special channelson the BBC network have been created for children for specific agegroups. This according to the moderator would reduce claims of exposureand objection to controversial advertising to children. But it mustalso be noted that commercial advertising can hardly be eluded by thesemeasures. Funded by the public, programs and channels are aired withthe object to reap revenues and without advertising to sponsor therewould be no channels at all. For these reasons the government cannoteliminate advertising from the broadcast media as it is apprehensive oferadicating the profitability margin for the national broadcastnetwork. Stanbrook (2002) notes that BBC channels have 10% market sharefor each of its channel. In the recent years the channel witnesseddecreasing market share which results in a decrease in revenueamounting to 255 million pounds. Good quality children's programs andadvertisement are not created from public funds but rather from theprivate sector and commercial television programs on the BBC. Levyingrestrictions means creating difficulties for the sponsors to enter thecompetitive market of two nationalised channels.

Furthermore, programs that are legitimate and in accordance to therequired standards do not receive large budgets for production. Andsince children are considered to be niche audiences, their channelsrequire even more funds for producing their programs. Unless theprograms generate funds themselves, most programs on the televisionnetwork rely on sponsors, which mean that they dictate the terms andthe contents of programs, whether ethical or unethical. Losing suchsupport means losing funding for the channels. Stanbrook (2002) writes:

"Significantly, children's TV has actually become very lucrative. Thisis not in fact due to the advertising revenues: prices for prime timechildren's TV in the UK are less than one-eighth of those for adultprime time. Children's programming, however, has increased enormouslyin the past ten years, apart from in countries where advertising tochildren has been banned." (Stanbrook 2002). This is because children'sprogramming is treated as merchandise with a view to increase revenuefrom advertising alone. It is difficult to ban advertising when themerchandise is dependent on the commercial attraction. BBC World forexample boast of 90 million pounds in the year 2000 for developingprograms related to children programs including Teletubbies and Bob. Itis a wonder that the interest of the national broadcast network and theauthority remains faithful to advertisers and sponsors from where theyget their funding. "The big bouncy clue to all this is that children'sadvertising and banding, and therefore children's programming is aglobal and cross border business wherever and however the programmingis located" writes Stanbrook. From the national perspectives this notonly provides important revenue but also the basis for UK's televisionnetwork acceptability in other regions of the world which equates tomore revenue.

Given the wide coverage of the BBC, there are only few laws forchildren advertising in countries in which the channels are broadcastedsuch as Japan, Korea, Australia or America. The attitudes of televisionproducers also reflect this as Thomas Nilsson Director of Programmingfor TV4 in Sweden says "If we were not legally obliged to producechildren's programming we would produce none at all - it just isn’tcommercially viable for us." for this reason it is difficult for theauthority to levy strict rules and regulations that deals with childrenadvertising for it would drive the funding out of children programming(Stanbrook 2002).

Data collection techniques in research are often different depending onthe nature and scope of the research work at hand. There are twoschools of thought where the choice of research technique and methodsinvolved is concerned. There are two broad methods namely quantitativeand qualitative. According to Asia Pacific Management Forum (2000):

"Quantitative research deals in numbers logic and the objective, whilequalitative research deals in words, images and the subjective.Quantitative research focuses on the left brain - objective,comfortable with logic, numbers, and unchanging static data anddetailed, convergent reasoning rather than divergent reasoning."

On the other hand: "Qualitative research deals with the right brain -the hemisphere accountable for processing data as words, emotions,feelings, emotions, colour, and music." (Asia Pacific Management Forum2000).

Thus the quantitative research involves the use of numerical andobjective values in research studies while the qualitative is moreexploratory dealing with subjective matters. For some researchers thequantitative method has a higher preference and recognition becausethey believe that quantitative studies clearly identify the results inquantitative figures therefore undeniable. The response to questions,the answers to questionnaires, the number of participants and thepercentage to certain categorizations give the results of the researchin black and white.

Hammersley argues (qt. McBride and Schostak 1995) "In my view thisdistinction between natural and artificial settings is spurious. Whathappens in a school class or in a court of law, for example, is no morenatural [or artificial] than what goes on in a social psychologicallaboratory." Hammersley and his school of thought researchers formtheir opinions based on the fact that the inferences surroundingresearch such as the environment, conditioning, variables, andtheoretical framework may help to achieve the desired results but it isvague in achieving the quantitative objective. It is throughquantitative research that provides strong evidence for researchwithout having to resort to speculation. There is no generalizationinvolved in this method.

Alternatively, there is qualitative research. According to (McBride and Schostak 1995):

"In qualitative research we seek to minimise the impact of ourinterventions [see triangulation below, for example] but also recognisethat there are other ways in which we do intervene. This is not toomuch of a problem if we remember that we are not trying to createobjective knowledge. Our knowledge is much softer. We cannot be certainthat practical work will always make learning easier. We cannot provethat a pupil will respond positively to using a word processor. Yet wecan have a pretty good idea that these maybe helpful to us in certainsituations. More importantly we endeavour to 'build' theory from theground of experience or practice. For qualitative researchers thecontext in which practice takes place has an important bearing uponthat practice and research should be rooted accordingly."

For this reason it is essential that researchers explore the differentsituations that surround the problem and analyze it through a setprocess before coming to conclusions. McBride and Schostak (1995) alsobelieve that qualitative research methodology are often adopted bynatural science researchers such as exploratory research objectivesconcerning human behaviours, interpretation of human actions andpatterns for deductive studies. The authors claim that differentacademics carry out pioneering work and attempt to describe new termsover old ones but it is the concept which has changed. This only can bededuced from a framework of knowledge by observing change andproblematical areas that induce change and using assumptions to set upboundaries for research. Although the authors refer to natural sciencebut in this researcher's opinion the same can be applied in marketingstudies as marketing also take a lot of references from the environmentand its impact on human behaviour and consumption patterns. "Byallowing theories to form through what people say and do, qualitativeresearch cannot be easily accused of imposing its theories upon people.Equally by keeping detailed records of what is said and of what happensqualitative research does not reduce the complexity of social life toeasily manipulated equations. Rather than skating on the surface ofeveryday life, its close contact and detailed recording allows theresearch to glimpse beneath the polished rhetoric, or the plausibledeceits; it is able to take more time to focus upon the smaller yetpowerful processes which other methods gloss over or ignore." (McBrideand Schostak 1995). Thus for this reason the researcher has adopted thequalitative approach.

Qualitative approach to the study allows the researcher to explore thevarious claims and dimensions that are discussed in the literaturereview based on a framework of theories. Combining the two theresearcher will able to critically analyze the validity of theirhypothesis and how they apply to this research objectives.

Unlike the quantitative method, qualitative approach to research studyusually sets up hypothesis that are subjective and attempts to testthrough a theoretical framework.

Given the above rationale the researcher also adds that qualitativeresearch is carried through a literature review of primary andsecondary resources. The choice of including secondary resources iswith the view to include existing knowledge and information that woulddirect the researcher towards the right direction. It acts as a guidein finding the primary resources. These resources are generalized mediasuch as magazines, online articles and newspapers.

On the other hand the researcher will base the framework on primarydata. Primary data include information generated from surveys, marketdata, interviews, focus groups and print media. From the print mediathe researcher include books and peer reviewed articles in journals tosolidify the theoretical framework for analysis purposes.

Thus, the combination of primary and secondary resources would helpdevelop the required theoretical base for developing cogent hypothesistesting and conclusions for the current research on advertising tochildren and its ethical implications.

Data Analysis

Drawing on the above discussion the researcher understands thatinformation processing and developmental theories suggest that childrenunderstand commercial messages but it is under certain conditions thatthey are persuaded to respond. As they mature the response rate changesand they tend to have more information processing skills todifferentiate the persuasive messages from that of specificadvertisements; they learn how to evaluate advertisements on televisionand distinguish what is beneficial for them and what is not. Childrenof five are perceptive of the commercial and television programs; theymay even distinguish that it is a funny or sad program. However, thedifferentiation tendency is restricted by the developmental milestone.According to Macklin (1987) and other authors by eight years old, mostchildren develop an initial understanding of advertising and whatpersuasiveness is. They are capable of distinguishing genuine concernover stimulants to a certain extent by comparing advertisements andconsequently they are able to resist the appeal to purchase. Thus theydevelop cognitive and attitudinal defences (Moore 2004).

As children grow older their vulnerabilities to the media tend todecrease according to Brucks et al (1988) and their attitudinal andcognitive defences increase to protect their well being and begin todevelop sceptical attitudes. Children between ages eight and twelveespecially are not susceptible to superficial advertisements but ratherare more influenced by commercials explicitly designed to appeal theaesthetic needs and wants such as brand awareness and image.

Consequently, one observes that the existing market place is selfregulated in which the government is undertaking special protection forthe vulnerable audiences while at the same time the companies areadopting marketing strategies that match and appeal children'scognitive abilities to break through their attitudinal defences. Sometimes however, some advertisers and marketers blur the line ofadvertisement and entertainment by creating a landscape of media thatwould influence children in a negative manner. By exploiting theirpsychology and susceptible behaviours, advertisers and marketers targetchildren without consideration for consequences such as mental, moraland health impacts. They tap into children's terrain such as games,food and penchant for information so that they could advertise productsto create wants among children. For example children consumers areready advergames, internet and video games users. Marketers realizingthis niche have targeted those between age group of 8 years and aboveto engage in cyber games and network games through the sponsoredadvertisers such as or The purpose is tonot only sell games but also to create a need for the products of thesesponsors.
In the UK although few companies engage in entertainment-that-persuadeprograms nevertheless they too are deviant in exploiting children'ssusceptibility to the media. As discussed in the literature review,companies tend to invade television air time on national televisionwith the view to capture the young audience. The persuasive intent andthe mode of communication namely verbal and audio to capture theattention of youngsters are common. For each of the age group sponsorshave dedicated certain type of advertisement messages designed toappeal and exploit children. Some argue that if advertisers do not usethe air time to advertise and market children's product then therewould be no children television programs.

Programs too have been designed with the purpose to relate the imageswith relative experiences of children since producers and marketersalike know through research that young audience's attention is bestcaptured through drama, novelty or advertisements. Older childrenaccording to the above research tend to be more sceptic of theinformation they receive and evaluate while younger children arerelatively vulnerable to audio and video effects.

For most of these younger groups ages 3 to 8 the most influential wayof capturing their attention is through audiovisuals. They are, asNeeley and Schumann claim more receptive to advertisements and tend toreceive information with the view to evaluate and compare. Amongyounger children this cognitive ability is limited to benefits,comparison and information storage but among older children theadvertisements are sources for creating product awareness,determination of choices and decision influences. However, it is alsoevident from the above review that receptivity does not necessarilymean that children will make the final choice and take action topurchase. In fact receptivity does not generate preferences accordingto some authors.

In Moore's (2004) study for example a survey through interviews takenof 60 children reveals that the younger children are moreproduct-focussed while the older ones are more creative in dimensions.Advertisements for younger children mean information about the brandsand how these are relative to their real life experiences. This mayrange from preference for sugary cereal to power to influence others.Advertisements that lack personal interest lose the desiredeffectiveness on children and consequently do not generate the desiredresponse.

On the other hand, among older children the perspective relates more toentertainment, brand information and how the products appeal to theirlifestyles. More like adults, the older children have a broader andricher view of life and therefore want more out of products than theyoung ones. "However, their perceptions were also often fraught withmisconceptions. Reflecting their relative inexperience in themarketplace, some of the older children believed that ads are supposedto contain fictional elements, and as a result permits advertiserssubstantial creative license in what they say about their brands.Unless an advertiser was perceived as having grossly overstepped theline between exaggeration and deliberate deception, the children tendedto characterize genuine problems as merely innocent mistakes oroversights." (Moore 2004). Moore is not the only one who considerschildren intelligent enough to distinguish details in advertisementsand reject them if advertisements do not appeal to them.

Lindstrom and Seybold (2003) in their extensive and pervasive study ofchildren's behaviour identify motivational characteristics andincentives as some of the key driving behaviours among teens.Successful brands according to them are those that tap into thepsychology of children who find collection value, gaming ability,technology savvy and mirror image more valuable and aspire to buy them.They also present the theoretical framework that children are not assome scholars believe susceptible to the media and unethicaladvertisements. The fact of the matter is that today's children arealready influenced by the media in more than the entertainment sector.They are the generation that belong to the digital media, love usingcredit cards and cannot live without their electronic gadgets. Theywould prefer text messaging instead of talking; watch more televisionthan any other generations and rely on the internet for all kinds ofinformation. Thus today's children are tech savvy and are also brandconscious. Their wants and needs are already established and cannotreally be influenced by advertisements on television.

Despite the indifference to advertisements, they are more brandconscious than any one else and have a major influence over familypurchases. Lindstorm and Seybold quote 300 billion dollar as the marketfor this group of consumers. That is the reason why they believe thatmarketers and advertisers desperately want to exploit this youngconsumer market.

Lindstorm and Seybold (2003) help the researcher to understand theviews of Moore and Lutz (2004) why some advertisers have to resort toadult like logic to sell their products and services to a consumermarket that is still under the teenage category. As scholars analyzethe behaviours of consumer susceptibility in terms of psychological andsocial backgrounds they will find that children are not as susceptibleto the media as they perceive. As Lindstorm and Seybold indicate thatchildren are smart, not easily deceived; they learn how to weigh thebenefits and the satisfaction from the claims. In this contextadvertisers are not so ethically wrong as compared to the claims manyscholars make such as Stanbrook (2002) and Neeley and Schumann (2004).No doubt children process directional information and are influenced bythe stimulants integrated in the messages but at the same time Piagetindicates they do not make decisions and preferences based on theadvertisements alone. They learn more about the products and throughexperiences, before they make the purchase decisions. It is becomingmore frequent that children influence their parents in purchasingproducts, needs created by advertisements. This is truer among youngerchildren as compared to older teens -the reason being that youngerchildren still rely on additional information form parents forprocessing advertisement stimuli and messages as compared to olderteens. They compare on the basis of experiences rather than on thebasis of logic and individual cognitive abilities. Adults can greatlyinfluence their reactions and responses to advertisements by guidingthem in the right direction.

The above analysis implies that advertisement to young children is forinformational purposes and to influence children in their informationprocessing rather than in their purchasing choice. Even whenadvertisers adopt unethical methods and practices, they do notadvertently direct children to purchase the products. They can onlyinfluence them. However, this does not mean that regulatory bodiesneglect the impact of negative advertisements to children.

The authority in the UK for example is careful in determining thebalance between the needs of the young consumers and the support forthe business world. The authority also realizes that there is adifference between regulating air time and advertisement contents thatinfluence children. Though the public claim that children televisionand sponsorships are unethical in their approaches in influencingchildren, the fact of the matter is that the sponsors actually conveyinformation about their products within the limitations and parametersset by the government. In this regard they do not employ unethicalmeans. Furthermore, the contents of these ads are designed for youngeraudiences no doubt but they do nothing more than influence them to makeinformational choices rather than turn toward something negative.

As far as the claim of obesity, moral and mental health is concernedadvertisement to children do at times induce harmful responses but itis clear from the above discussion that these decisions areindividualistic and result of their own preferences. There is noinfluence by the advertisements to children except for dissemination ofinformation. Processing as indicated is within the power of thechildren rather than the advertisers or the parents since it isestablished that modern day children make up their own minds and createtheir own environment.

Consequently, the ethical implications that the researcher venture toinvestigate reveals that advertisements to children are not morally orethically wrong as such given the fact that children today are morereceptive and intelligent in their own way. Moore (2003) proves thatthey are intelligent and Lindstorm and Seybold further this view thatmodern children are already influenced by the electronic media andtechnology that surround them. No external forces can really generateresponses from them except for their own selves.

From the above analysis and literature review one can conclude thatadvertising to children has various dimensions to the problem. Thisranges from ethical implications to the psychological impacts onchildren and how these are regulated.

From the research study the researcher found that advertisingspecifically aimed at children are designed to influence their choicesand preferences. Marketers and advertisers adopt complex methodologiesto create awareness and provide information regarding the products totheir young audience. The advertisers must resort to the media that hasthe most viewer ship that is the television. Since children today watchmore television hours than their previous counterparts it is onlyprudent that advertisers sell products by buying airtime to reach outto their desired target market. There are several reasons why companiesand the advertisers go to such length to reach to their consumers -firstly, because television provides the direct reach to children;secondly because the media is easy to access through purchase of airtime through sponsorship; and thirdly because children televisionchannels need the funding from these sponsors to run. The advertisersare merely complying with their own needs. In the event that thechildren take action by influencing their parents to purchase brandsthat they want to have, advertisers have no direct influence.

Children of today are not only smart in making their own decisions butthey are also receptive to the environment around them. Most havetranscended from manual activities to technology based such as gaming,surfing and messaging. They learn more through the medium of theinternet and television than from around them. They are more aware thanscholars perceive them to be. In fact they are not susceptible to theenvironment around them but rather to the media through which theyinteract.  Advertisers vie this as their competitive advantage and tendto exploit through regular advertisements. More importantly thesechildren also demonstrate characters and attitudes that are similar toadults. Consequently marketers adopt strategies that reflect thosedesigned for adult advertisements. For these reasons it is imperativethat regulations be present to monitor adult advertising that filtratechildren related programs or advertisements designed for children.

The difficulty in accessing this untapped market motivate advertiserseven more to deviate and take alternative courses and strategies toreach out to the young audience. This is where they cross the linebetween right and wrong. Children even though are smart enough todistinguish what is beneficial for them and what is not, do not havethe cognitive ability to differentiate between the right and wrongunless they are extremely experienced. For this reason scholars andlobbyists are right in their views that businesses sometimes cross theethical lines for monetary gains. Consequently, there is a need for aregulatory body that monitors the content and approach ofadvertisements to children.

Ultimately, the authority that regulates these marketers andadvertisers must realize that advertising is not about restriction butrather about freeing the choices of the consumers. It is aboutdissemination of information and creating awareness of the variouschoices that consumer have for their consumption. Children as young asthree years old are not developed enough to have the cognitive abilityto make the choice. What they are capable of is association throughaudio and visual effects. Marketers tend to exploit these behaviouralaspects of young children to motivate them to influence parentspurchase their desired products.
Alternately children grow and develop the ability to differentiate anddistinguish between qualities and characteristics of products. At thisstage they are more interested in how these can benefit them in theirlives. Again advertisers use this aspect of their thirst forinformation to generate wants and needs that do not really satisfy thembut do influence them when they make the purchase decisions with theirparents.
And lastly as children grow older to teenage level they are intelligentand are able to distinguish between the products they want and thosethey don’t; the brand they prefer and those they reject; and thequalities that they seek and those they refuse. At this stageadvertisers devise complex strategies as indicated by Acuff and Reiher(1998) to reach to the young audience by exploring every aspect oftheir lives before they come up with advertisements. They reach thechildren at the emotional and aesthetic level rather than base theirstrategies on image, audio/video or information only. Thus as Shipley(2004) writes: “Advertising helps to raise awareness in a commerciallycompetitive environment and encourages brand choice. But while it mayencourage consumers to try something once, if the product or service isnot good quality or doesn't deliver a consumer need, consumers will notcome back for more. In short, advertising cannot make consumers dothings they don't want to do; it needs to work with consumer interestand desire.” Consumers young as they may be know the differences inadvertising messages and will differentiate their choices when they goout in the market. Audiovisual effects do not really influence them.


  • Acuff, D. and Reiher, R. H. 1998, What Kids Buy and Why: The Psychology of Marketing to Kids. Free Press.
  • Asia Pacific Management Forum 2000, Qualitative Market Research: AnEmerald - Asia Pacific Management Forum Weekly Research Review.Qualitative Market Research: an International Journal.
  • Alwitt, et al 1980, "Preschool Children's Visual Attention toAttributes of Television," Human Communication Research, 7 (Fall),52-67.
  • Bahn, K. D. 1986, "How and When Do Brand Perceptions and PreferencesFirst Form? A Cognitive Developmental Investigation," Journal ofConsumer Research, 13 (December), 382-393.
  • Bejot, M. and Doittau, B. April–June 2004, Advertising to children inFrance. World Advertising Research Centre 2004 Advertising &Marketing to Children.
  • Bergler, R. 1999, The Effects of Commercial Advertising on Children, International Journal of Advertising, 18 (4), 411-425.
  • Brucks, M., G. M. Armstrong and M. E. Goldberg: 1988, 'Children's Useof Cognitive Defences Against Television Advertising: A CognitiveResponse Approach', Journal of Consumer Research 14(March), 471482.
  • Chebar, Jean-Charles, Michel Laroche, Daisy Baddoura, and PierreFiliatrault 1992, "Effects of Source Likeability on Attitude ChangeThrough Message Repetition," in Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 19,John F. Sherry, Jr., and Brian Sternthal, eds., Provo, UT: Associationfor Consumer Research, 353-358.
  • Cross, G. 2002, Valves of Desire: A Historian's Perspective on Parents,Children, and Marketing, Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (December),441-447.
  • Del Vecchio, Gene 1998, Creating Ever-Cool: A Marketers Guide to a Kid's Heart, Gretna, LA: Pelican.
  • Fazio, R. H. 1986, "How do attitudes guide behaviour?" in Handbook ofMotivation and Cognition, Ed. Richard M. Sorrentino and E. ToryHiggins, New York; Guilford, p. 204.
  • Henke, L. L. 1995, Young Children's Perceptions of Cigarette BrandAdvertising Symbols: Awareness, Affect, and Target MarketIdentification, Journal of Advertising, 24 (Winter), 13-28.
  • Lindstrom, M. and Seybold, P. 2003, BRANDChild: Remarkable Insightsinto the Minds of Today's Global Kids and there Relationships withBrands. Kogan Page, London.
  • Macklin, M. Carole 1986, "Classical Conditioning Effects inProduct/Character Pairings Presented to Children," in Advances inConsumer Research, vol. 13, Richard Lutz, ed., Provo, UT: Associationfor Consumer Research, 198-203.
  • Moore, E. and Lutz, R. June 2000, Children, Advertising, and ProductExperiences: A Multimethod Inquiry. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.27, Issue C.
  • Moore, E. S. 2004, Children and the Changing World of Advertising.Journal of Business Ethics. Dordrecht: Jun Vol.52, Iss. 2; pg. 161
  • McBride, R. and Schostak J. 1995, An introduction to qualitative research. Enquiry Learning Unit.
  • Neeley, S. M. and Schumann, D. W. 2004, Using AnimatedSpokes-Characters in Advertising to Young Children: Does IncreasingAttention to Advertising Necessarily Lead to Product Preference?Journal of Advertising. Volume: 33. Issue: 3. p.7
  • Piaget, J. 1929, The Child's Conception of the World, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  • Roedder, D. L. 1981, Age Differences in Children's Responses toTelevision Advertising: An Information-Processing Approach, Journal ofConsumer Research, 8 (September), 144-153.
  • Rossiter J. R. and T. S.: 1974, Children's TV Commercials: Testing the Defences, Journal of Communication 24(4), 137-144.
  • Siegler, R. S. 1996, "Unidimensional thinking, multidimensionalthinking and characteristics tendencies of thought" in The Five toSeven Year Shift: The Age of Reason and Responsibility. Ed. Arnold
  • J.Sameroff and Marshall M. Haith, Chicago: University of Chicago Press,p. 63-84.
  • Rust, L. and Hyatt C.1991, "Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches toChild Research," in Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 18, Rebecca H.Holman and Michael R. Solomon, eds., Provo, UT: Association forConsumer Research, 18-22.
  • Schneider, C. 1989, and Children’s Television: The Art, the Business, and How It Works, Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Business Books.
  • Shipley et al. 2004, The kids question. Marketing. London: Feb 12, 2004. pg. 22, 2 pgs
  • Smith, R. E. and W. R. Swinyard: 1982, 'Information Response Models: AnIntegrated Approach', Journal of Marketing 46(Winter), 81-92.
  • Stanbrook, L. 2002, Public Policy Issues in children's advertising andprogramming. Advertising & Marketing to Children January–March 2002
  • The Lancet. 2003, Thought for Food. The Lancet. Vol 362 • November 15, 2003