Marketing to Children: Why Restrictions Are Necessary
This essay argues that children constitute a psychologically vulnerable population ill-equipped to critically analyze marketing communications, and that regulatory restrictions on advertising to children are both necessary and justified. Drawing on developmental psychology, the paper contends that young children lack the cognitive capacity for critical thought, making them easy targets for advertisers who leverage cutting-edge psychology and sociology. The essay proposes a framework for restricting harmful product marketing across all channels, addresses the slippery slope challenge of defining harmful products, and refutes the claim that advertising can serve an educational function for children. It concludes that educating children about media and advertising is the role of parents and trained educators—not advertisers.
- Introduction: Children as a Vulnerable Population: Children lack capacity for critical advertising analysis
- Closing All Marketing Channels to Protect Children: All channels must be regulated to close loopholes
- The Slippery Slope of Defining Harmful Products: Defining harmful products presents regulatory challenges
- The Weakness of the Educational Advertising Argument: Advertisers are not educators and should not act as such
- Who Should Teach Children About Advertising: Parents and educators bear responsibility for media literacy
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The essay stakes out a clear, direct position from the opening sentence and maintains it consistently throughout, giving the argument strong coherence and focus.
- It anticipates and directly refutes counterarguments — particularly the claims that advertising is educational and that children can develop critical analysis — rather than ignoring opposing views.
- Concrete examples (e-cigarettes, McDonald's Happy Meals, Subway) ground abstract policy arguments in recognizable real-world scenarios, making the position accessible and persuasive.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective use of logical refutation: it identifies the opposing claim (advertising educates children), labels its rhetorical flaw ("red herring"), and then redirects responsibility to a more appropriate party (parents and educators). This technique — naming a fallacy and providing an alternative — is a hallmark of structured argumentative writing at the undergraduate level.
Structure breakdown
The essay moves through five functional stages: (1) establishing the core claim using developmental psychology; (2) proposing a multi-channel regulatory framework; (3) acknowledging and engaging the hardest countercase (where to draw the line); (4) dismantling the educational-advertising argument; and (5) reassigning responsibility for media literacy to parents and educators. Each section builds on the previous, creating a linear argumentative arc that culminates in a pointed concluding statement.
Introduction: Children as a Vulnerable Population
There should be rules that companies must follow with respect to marketing to children. The argument that children are capable of critical analysis does not hold up to scrutiny. Due to the way the brain develops, young children do not physically have the capacity for critical analysis. As children age, they begin to develop the different levels of cognition that allow for critical thought, to the point where a teenager is fully capable of thinking critically (Kuhn, 1999). Even then, however, children have had little practice in critical thinking at that age. Advertisers use the most up-to-date knowledge of psychology and sociology to sell their products — and if most adults can offer little resistance, children certainly cannot.
Children are therefore a vulnerable population, psychologically ill-equipped to critically analyze marketing communications directed at them. A young child, for example, cannot reasonably draw the connection between fast food and obesity in order to make healthy eating choices. Rules must stand between marketers and children. Children should not be targeted by marketing for products that are clearly harmful and have no discernible value — they deserve the chance to develop the capacity for critical thought before being subjected to endless advertisements.
Closing All Marketing Channels to Protect Children
Any restrictions should apply across all marketing channels. If a loophole is left open for companies, they will take it. When a determination is made that a certain industry cannot market to children, all channels must be closed off. The system by which this would work need not be complex. First, a list of restricted products is established — for example, if the goal is to ban the marketing of e-cigarettes to children, that means prohibiting the sale of e-cigarettes in locations visible to children and on children's programming, or setting a time restriction such as no advertisements before 9 p.m. A regulatory body would need to handle consumer complaints, and fines or advertising prohibitions would serve as punishments sufficient to dissuade violators.
Under such a framework, certain products can be barred outright, certain times of day can be restricted, or specific imagery can be prohibited — a kind of "Santa Claus rule" in which particular characters or symbols associated with child-targeted marketing are forbidden. As an example, McDonald's could advertise a Big Mac at any time it chooses, but could not advertise a Happy Meal or make use of a clown, an anthropomorphic mascot, or a character framed as a hamburger thief.
References
Watson, B. (2014). The tricky business of advertising to children. The Guardian Magazine. Retrieved November 29, 2014, from http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/advertising-to-children-tricky-business-subway
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.