I think your assertion that because eating some fast food won't hurt kids, marketing to them is OK misses the point. It's not whether a particular product or service being marketed to kids is good or bad; it's that children are not adults, and lack the mental development, understanding of consequences, and perspective to make good choices.

That's not a put-down of kids, it's just reality. Talk to someone who teaches early teens and you'll hear tales of how they sometimes just don't get how actions have consequences. Studies of younger children show that they have real trouble distinguishing between ads, factual content, and fictional content on television. (Is it any surprise that child-oriented agencies hire child psychologists to help them understand how to change childrens' behavior?)

There's something inherently wrong about using those media to persuade people who haven't developed the skills to evaluate what they are hearing, and that's true whether you're selling them fast food or organic snacks.

Yes, any parent can say no. It's worth asking why we would let people manufacture desires in children that parents then have to resist - until the kids have more autonomy and go make the choices on their own.

Now, if McDonald's had a campaign designed to convince parents that their food was a fun special treat that would make the kids happy, that would be fine; parents can decide if they believe that.

But leave the kids alone, or at least spare us facile excuses for why it's really okay to manipulate them.

I agree with every point. Americans today are lazy, to lazy to be good parents and tell their kids no, to lazy to exercise themselves and their kids, to lazy to make decisions for themselves.

Great post Cam!

I totally disagree with John's comment.

"It's worth asking why we would let people manufacture desires in children that parents then have to resist..."

No one said parenting was easy.

Cam, I disgree with your premise...it's not the effect that McDonalds' marketing has on ADULTS that's upsetting, it's the effect it has on CHILDREN. Elementary school-aged children do not have a well-developed sense of what is and isn't good for you - they want to eat their dessert before dinner, to stay up past midnight on a school night, to take candy from strangers. And yes, it's up to parents, the rational ones in the relationship, to curb these self-destructive desires. But what if there were a marketing campaign designed to get children to accept candy from strangers? Wouldn't you, as a parent, be upset? I doubt that you would sit back and say, "Well, it's really just about good parenting; parents can teach kids to ignore those ads."

The problem is that McDonald's is hitting where it hurts, getting loyal customers at their most vulnerable - the impressionable years of childhood - and thus securing loyal customers for years to come. Of the children that participated in the study, I bet the majority that favored McDonald's were like me when I was a child, the "once a month as a treat because mom and dad are too tired to cook" McDonald's visitors. It's not the habit-forming side effect that scares me, it's the brainwashing effect that turns young people into Ronald McDonald-loving drones - regardless of how cool the Happy Meal toy is that week.

Lisa - The analogy you used is flawed. Advertising that encourages kids take candy from strangers encourages risky behavior. It is not equivalent to marketing fast food, as it is currently done.

A Happy Meal, properly consumed and in moderation, is not innately harmful or risky. McDonald's is neither claiming excessive fast food is good for kids nor are is the company encouraging gluttony.

It is up to the parents to teach good eating habits, put limits on the diets of their children, and when necessary, close the purse strings, be the parent and say, "No."

Cam,

Thank you for sharing this important subject. It will come as no surprise to you that I oppose any legislation that interferes with our rights. And that is exactly what legislation aimed at marketing does.

As for children, I taught 4th graders for five years. And they are easily influenced. However, if we want them to grow to become smart and savvy about advertising, the last thing we want to do is legislate against it. Instead, we want our children to be exposed to all kinds of choices, good and bad. Then we can help them distinguish between the two.

Parents, if you disagree with the message, talk to your children. They would appreciate it.

Cam,
While I agree that parents hold the key to their children's long-term development, they are simply unable to be everywhere at once. In fact, the major part of school-age children's waking hours are spent outside the home - at school. McDonalds and other purveryors of junk food (sodas, candy, etc.) use their massive economic influence to lobby congress to undertake business practices that enure their flourishment and survival. According to Eric Schlosser's Fast Food Nation, these companies offer schools (at least at the time of the book's publication) financial rewards for offering and enouraging students to purchase and consume these items ON CAMPUS. How can parents fight against that?

Tiffany - You raise a good, separate issue that needs to be addressed at some point (preferably sooner rather than later)... that is, the influence of lobbying on public policy. That will be true across the spectrum of business and special interest, however.

If, by the time my school-age children reach the age when I cannot control the amount of money they earn by their own rights, I have not taught them how to make good choices, the fault still lies with me and my children, not the marketers.

As an amusing aside, a few weeks back, when my son was watching a cereal commercial (I suppose it doesn't matter which one... I think it was Shredded Wheat), he commented that he thought the company was bad, because "they only want your money."

To your point, you KNOW this comment was caused by something that happened outside of the home. I had to spend the next few days enlightening him on the virtues of capitalism. ;)

I do not consider myself qualified as a marketer to comment here, but I am a parent, and have helped raise three strong, sensible and healthy sons who have been taught at a very early age what is good for them and what is not. I recall we started them in the kitchen with a hand on the hot burner on the stove, right, Cam? In order to address all of the issues stated here, I believe one must consider not only the fast food industry, and the responsibility we as parents share in teaching our children at an early age what's good for them and what's not, but also the cereal industry, the soft drink industry, and perhaps others I have not thought much about lately. I would vehemently oppose, however, the loss of one's right to advertise their product, appropriately, of course, to a target audience of any age. Do we REALLY want the courts to decide everything for us, or can we reach some sort of common-sensical standard on our very own?

As someone in marketing, I think McDonald's does a great job with their catchy campaigns, I still remember some of their jingles from years ago. As a parent I found that my child is exposed to McDonalds even if we rarely eat their food and don't have the exposure to the TV ads. Personally, I think they have the best word of mouth advertising among children. My 3 year old was learning her letters and every time she gets to M, she informs me that M is for McDonalds. And that's without ever seeing any of their marketing campaigns. I also tell my daughter no for eating at McDonalds and its never been an issue at our house. Personally, I wish McDonalds would do commercials for vegetables!

For those not in the loop, "Polar Bear" is my dad using a nickname he's long held among friends and family, and he was just joking about the hand on the burner thing. ;)

Marti - You might get your wish. I might be wrong on the details, but McDonald's recently promised to market Happy Meals to kids only if they contain carrots or some other vegetable.

While it makes sense from a legal or PR backlash standpoint, to me it seems they're trying too hard. I have nothing against eating healthy and advertising healthy food (although the ubiquitous usefulness of the 30-second spot is up for discussion and debate), but... I don't know. Is healthy eating really a compelling benefit to kids? McDonald's has got to know who they are... and their contributions to charity are well known and documented. I'll be interested in seeing how they package it.

I won't go as far as to say they have NOTHING to apologize for (for who among us doesn't?), but on this issue, I will certainly do them no harm here.

Parents are eating too much of this food as well! And hey, whose to blame for the lack of activity that contributes just as much to the obesity problem as fast food. Why aren't parents involving their kids more in outdoor activities, sports, playing outside.

It's really easy to blame someone else. Parents should take responsibility. They don't have to take them to McDonalds. It's not required.

I always discourage my nine-year old from borrowing the car, grabbing my cash, and heading to McDonalds for lunch. After all, he's too young to understand that the food is just plain unhealthy.

Kids like McDonalds because to them -- to a young, untrained palate unaccustomed to duck liver pate or pork rinds -- lots of salt and fat work really well. Of course they like it. To them, it's a great *product*. So don't lay the blame on *advertising*.

It's heavily marketed to kids because they're great influencers on where the family goes for lunch when we're all out at the mall getting our weekly dose of culture. The kids don't make the call. They don't drive the car or have the disposable income (my point above was all just literary license -- sorry) and thus their ability to discern the finer points of pop culture and spontaneous nutrition are frankly, completely moot points.

Cam - Thanks for taking time to write and discuss this subject.

As a McDonald's executive, I can tell you that McDonald's has been actively addressing this very subject for quite some time.

In fact, McDonald's is only advertising Happy Meals with white meat McNuggets, fresh apple slices and low-fat milk, a right-sized meal of only 375 calories.

To put this topic in its proper context, McDonald's Happy Meal customers on average purchase two a month.

As you correctly stated, parents make the decisions for their children and our research confirms that we've earned their trust as a responsible marketer based on decades of delivering the safest food, the highest quality toys and the kind of choice and variety today's families are looking for.

As you know, we live in an ever-changing consumer-driven world. McDonald's is an advocate for progress. We listen to our customers and we take action as we continue to innovate and evolve.

Stephen -

One thing that occurred to me when I considered your comment is that the study measured the effect of the packaging, but it did not conclude that the result was a result of the advertising. When we blame the advertising, we're making a non sequitur assumption not supported by the evidence.

To test the effect of the advertising alone, we'd have to create a control group that had been exposed to McDonald's food, but not its advertising, and a test group that had been exposed to both.

Todd - Thank you for weighing in here. I don't envy your position at all. It seems like you have some tough battles ahead of you. Good luck!

Amen!

Cam, I completely agree with your post...if we start here, where does it stop? When are we going to force parents to be parents? I used to beg my Mom to take me and my sister to McDonald's all the time and I was always told no...did I grow up feeling deprived? No, I grew up respecting my parents. It's the same as how I am constantly questioning where the parents are when I see girls dressed way too sexily and boys with hair in their eyes and pants down to their knees. Someone is giving these kids money to do these things and I just think parents are more interested in being "friends" with their kids than being actual parents.

Cam, I completely agree with your post...if we start here, where does it stop? When are we going to force parents to be parents? I used to beg my Mom to take me and my sister to McDonald's all the time and I was always told no...did I grow up feeling deprived? No, I grew up respecting my parents. It's the same as how I am constantly questioning where the parents are when I see girls dressed way too sexily and boys with hair in their eyes and pants down to their knees. Someone is giving these kids money to do these things and I just think parents are more interested in being "friends" with their kids than being actual parents.

I say Here! Here! I think you are dead on! I am glad you stood up and said it!!! We need to stop blaming someone else for all our "problems" whatever they may be.

I agree that we need to take responsibility for our decisions. It's true that children (up to a certain point) are unable to distinguish what is good/bad for them...so who is responsible then? THEIR PARENTS. And while I understand that parents can't be everywhere at once, they can be there when it counts. For example, when a child asks for fast food and a parent says no, they should mean it and stand by it! They may cry and throw a fit and get their pout on, but ultimately it's the parents responsibility to make these good vs. bad decisions and teach their children right from wrong as they grow older. It may be hard but regardless of how much a child may whine, complain or what not it's better than enabling them, teaching them improper habits that could ultimately result in heart problems, diabetes, obesity and ultimately reducing their quality of life.

There's always going to be some opposing force that can cause difficulties for a parent. But as hard as that is, c'est la vie! Having taught many children before it's easy to see that TVs are raising children more in some families than their parents are. This is a sickening thought but it shows why children may listen to the "wisdom" of a commercial over that of their real parents.

Cam, I completely agree with your post. I believe educating your children with the tools to make good decisions in life starts at home. Too many parents today are delegating that important responsibility to the schools and society in general. My kids never felt deprived that they couldn't eat at McDonalds or any other heavily marketed fastfood place on a regular basis. They learned that this type of food is ok in moderation, but for the most part healthy "sit down" meals are what is important. As a result, I see this in how they ultimately decide what they want to eat at meal time.

I don't think marketing or advertising is to blame nor should it be regulated by the government. It comes down to parents stepping up to the responsibility they signed on for when they had children.

Another law... oh, sure, why not? Let's make a law that forces McDonald's (and select other fast food companies) to add a certain number of carrots to every meal marketed toward kids. And twice that number for meals marketed to adults. And let's have a special government-provided guard at each restaurant to ensure that all children (and parents) eat their carrots and don't dump half of them in the trash (as kids usually do with their burgers and fries... not counting the ones Mom or Dad eat, of course).

Then let's make another law that defines the proper number of carrots for Mom or Dad to purchase each month for use at home during the 16 required "eat in" days. We'll have a signed contract that all carrots will be eaten by the 23rd day of each month, leaving 7 days (on average) for accounting, adjustments, indictments, congressional hearings, data processing, analysis and reporting.

Then...

Well, you may think I'm just kidding now, but when I am made United States Food Czar (and there will soon be one), I'm coming for all of you who are in favor of having the government protect us from every company, person and thing, and from every possible negative outcome in our (then) pointless lives.

How might it be that there are so many who would so happily strangle themselves with a thread of legalese and red tape? What if people were to wake up one day and realize that they really have control over nothing in their own lives... unless someone is there to stop them, is there to stop them, is there to stop them...

I share with your the words of Martin Niemoller:

~~~
First They Came for the Jews

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

~~~

Cam,thank you for sharing your insight. You are correct. In fact, it is not only not McDonald's fault, but it's not the adversing agency's fault, nor is it the television station manager's, nor the delivery guy who carries the huge bags of frozen fries, nor his shoe maker or his truck tire maker or... By golly, yep, I guess it is my fault for eating more than I should of things I know aren't as healthy as I could and for teaching my children by my bad couch potato example and willingness to give into their every whim to keep them my "friends"

Oh, gotta go... just thought of another law we will need...

Cam,

We were raised by parents and school teachers that taught us to never believe what we read without getting other opinions on the subject. We raised our four children to do the same. The reason we were not to believe in everything we read was that the writer could have incorrect "facts" and self serving motives that we should try to discern by thinking about what was written and detemining in our own minds, how it stacked up to experience and "common sense." It is easier now to look at other versions of the facts, with internet etc. but even harder to determing which are the accurate facts. Our parents and the school teachers taught and preached the same message. We were taught to think, think, think, before accepting and supporting anything. Boy, has that kept me out of trouble and made me successful over the years.

These days the current set of parents that did not get the same teaching we did, are incapable of teaching their kids to think first. That does not however, justify asking our law makers to restrict any advertising for two reasons. The most important is that it is not in keeping with our definition of freedom. The second reason is that our lawmakers, were not taught to question every thing they read and think about critically what they've read,or been told, hence they are incapable of producing sensible laws.

Enough ranting for now. My blogs do not rant but they deliver the same message in a way that gets through the readers defenses in a sneaky way. They make you think about it on the back burner.

Wesley (Wes) Zimmerman

Marketing to kids is always going to be ethically inappropriate because children do not have the cognitive development of an adult. It is exploitative from a purely physiological argument- they are inherently naive consumers who are easily manipulated. Many countries in Europe ban advertisements during children's programming which just makes basic sense. Most people who read this post seem to be coming from emotionally sensible families, but not every child is that lucky. Government public policy is generally designed to protect the wellbeing of citizens- as it should be. Name calling (so and so is an evil corporation) and finger pointing obviously do little to remedy any situation. It is not inappropriate however to suggest that public policy should act to protect vulnerable populations from exploitative corporations whose bottom line is obviously and necessarily profit. All parenting individuals are not going to act in the best interest of children nor will all businesses, both are unrealistic and dangerous assumptions for children.

"It is exploitative from a purely physiological argument- they are inherently naive consumers who are easily manipulated."

MJ - Thank you for weighing in. The difficulty in bringing a contrary view is not lost on me, and I appreciate your input.

I have to take issue with the exploitative argument, though. Advertising serves many purposes, not the least of which is to inform audiences of something they may not have been aware of before, or to bring something already there to immediate recollection. Sometimes that might be the availability of happy meals, and sometimes that might be a simple message such as "stay away from drugs."

Neither is explicitly exploitative, as they do not rely on coercion (actually, "stay away from drugs," is inherently more coercive, as the edict is backed by the full force of law, but there aren't many who would claim such a message would be exploitative.), and they do not advocate anything immoral.

Government policy (in America, at least) is not to protect the wellbeing of citizens in every aspect, but to give people an avenue to accomplish collectively that cannot by rights be accomplished individually. The entirety of human history, in fact, demonstrates irrefutably that people have more to fear from abuses of government power than they have to fear from being left to their own devices, since they will on balance act in their own best interests, ultimately. This is why the Constitution grants certain, specific powers to the federal government, and acknowledges that all other powers are reserved to the states and to the people.

It is not government's function to protect our children from all sorts of advertising, if for no other reason than we recognize that such a body that features pillars of morality like Gary Condit are ill equipped for such a monumental task.

As stated before, some advertising does not result in harm (such as marketing happy meals, but not gluttony), and in fact may be even beneficial (such as suggesting kids shouldn't be shooting up heroin).

In the end, those who control the purse strings in the family control what their children eat, and instead of asking government to be the arbiter of all things we do, the call for rightly ordered freedom demands we be equipped to deal with minor issues such as "What are we going to have for dinner," and "By what forces will we allow ourselves to be influenced" by ourselves.

This is, by the way, why we have public education... or at least why our founders deemed such instruction so necessary as to subsidize it under the terms of the parents of the districts who would be responsible for the instruction.

All this brings us back to the main point, which is that if we are incapable of handling such a little thing as deciding how we should react to advertising not innately harmful, we certainly can't be trusted with putting those in power who would be empowered to tell us... much less in deciding if they should have such power at all.