Marketers have long developed strategies and tactics to turn young children into brand-conscious consumers. Exposed to TV and radio from a young age as well as new digital platforms, kids are fair game for marketers who seek to make brand devotees out of the most susceptible demographics.
According to James McNeal, marketing professor and author of “The Kids Market: Myths and Realities,” most children recognize at least 200 logos by the time they enter school. And 50% of kids age five ask for specific brands by name.
But when it comes to marketing to kids: How young is too young? Recent developments show that marketers are intent on reaching out to an even younger group of potential consumers: newborns and toddlers. This move on the part of even mom-endorsed brands like Disney is bound to get some parental push-back … although reactions are certain to be wide ranging.
In the article “The Next Great American Consumer” published in Adweek, examples are given of aggressive tactics being used by brands to woo even babies in hospital nurseries. This is all in an effort to establish brand preferences at the earliest possible age. But are researchers so certain infants and toddlers have enough cognitive development to recognize brand logos?
It all depends on how much exposure kids get to TV and today’s slick digital gadgets. Calming fussy babies down by plopping them in front of a television or computer screen, iPad, or iPhone to view images or downloaded apps featuring Disney, Sesame Street or Nick Jr. characters may act as a surrogate babysitter, but what’s being absorbed? Subtle and not-so-subtle brand messaging? And what are the ramifications?
According to the Adweek piece, BabyFirstTV.com has launched as a new network with content for babies. The network offers videos, games, music, and educational content geared for babies and toddlers. One wonders how much advertising, branded product placement, and games will be embedded in this programming. How much will be absorbed? How influential will it be? Will it increase the “nag factor”? We all know young children are susceptible to advertising.
Want to see some staggering data? Check out the Joan Ganz Cooney Center study, “Always Connected: The new digital media habits of young children.”
Among their findings: 80% of children under 5 years old us the Internet every week. 60% of kids aged three and under watch videos online.
- Is this too much for very young children? Where should the line be drawn age-wise on exposure to media and advertising?
- Do you think harm is being done to young children due to an excessive push toward consumerism?
- What should marketers do in response to pressure from watchdog groups’ push back on marketing to the very young?
- What should parents do?
I’d love to get input from marketers, parents, educators on this topic.
Tags: Advertising, Branding, Marketing
Well, Ted, I represent all categories. I am a parent, a former educator, and a marketer. And on all fronts, I think this sucks.
What began just one generation ago with baby boomers craving Barbies, G.I. Joe, hula hoops, and McDonald’s, has evolved (or devolved) into a mass market for digital toys, branded clothing, and the latest gadgets. Sure, it’s good for the economy, but bad for raising children with values and independent minds.
I truly hope that this experiment fails miserably and that little ones develop without the materialism of our culture. It will catch up with them eventually. Surely, we should allow for some period of innocence, even if for a short time. I say hands off the babes!
Hi Elaine,
Thanks, Elaine, for your comments. Like you, I’m a parent as well as a marketer. Look, we all know that parents are going to be purchasing products for our children from birth until they’re on their own. It’s one thing to pitch the parents of very young children and another to go directly to the uber impressionable young. And the question is: how young is too young? Pre-schoolers have long been targeted by marketing messaging as it is. We as parents try to imprint our values on our children but as you point out, the materialism in our culture makes it more difficult than ever. I agree that childhood should be a period of protected innocence and freedom from materialism. While many of these brands offer sound nutritional or educational values for very young children, reaching out to the parents rather than babies is a sound strategy. Otherwise the push back is likely to be fierce and the indignation toward overly aggressive brands is going to backfire.
Agreed, Ted. Unless, of course, new Millennial parents are OK with it.
Love your tongue-in-cheek response, Elaine. I seriously doubt parents of any generation are OK seeing their babies targeted by marketers in a blatant, aggressive manner. Overdoing it is never a good idea. I’m wondering how many Millennials know how marketers are reaching their young offspring in clever ways on the Internet via games and entertainment. Soft sell directed at parents is expected and more the norm. I do see significant pushback coming otherwise.
Having brands in hospital nurseries? That’s taking it way too far. It’s bad enough that children are bombarded with advertising on a daily basis from billboards, radio commercials, and tv. But to start throwing this stuff at them right from the womb is crossing the line. Parents have a say when it comes to tv, books, and games their children play. But I wouldn’t want my newborn to be in a nursery sponsored by MasterCard or McDonald’s.
You’ve spoken for a great many parents, Lionel. Thank you for your insights. Marketing to newborns and using communication platforms aimed at the youngest among us to form brand preferences at the earliest possible age is bound to stir up parental emotions. They won’t be positive ones and at its heart: doesn’t marketing seek to create positive experiences for consumers at every touch point? That’s why I think marketers should really tread cautiously when it comes to marketing to kids. How young is too young?
Hi Ted – we already have the Children’s Television Act of 1990, in addition to ethical standards adhered to by agencies, advertisers and broadcasters. I’m in favor of parental monitoring and control of what kids get to watch/eat. And we can control (to a degree) kids exposure to marketing messages. I realize there’s a push-pull here and definitely a balance but I’m more in favor of letting the market and parents figure it out rather than additional rules/regulation. Your thoughts?
Hi Paul,
Thank you for sharing your cogent remarks on this topic. Quite right. Parental supervision and responsibility come first but marketers share some responsibility when it comes to children, as well. No amount of legislating or regulations are going to stop ingenious marketers from finding ways to reach their targets. As you say, the markets will do what they do and parents need to be the gatekeepers here but as I said to Elaine, it’s getting more difficult to keep up with all of the ways in which our kids are being sold on brands and products every day. Truthfully, we simply don’t know how many impressions are kids are getting.