Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

Original poster

to think debenhams wall of sweets at the till in the childrenswear dept is disgraceful.

121 replies

mairmaid · 12/02/2011 17:32

Don't often go shopping but found myself next to a wall of sweets in Debenhams childrenswear dept. Is this a new thing? I asked them if there was not some legislation with respect to sweets at tills. Their response "We're not a supermarket". Was there not a reason why legislation was recently stopped to reduce pester power at supermarket tills? Does it make it ok in debenhams just because you don't need to buy clothes as regularly as food?

OP posts:

oldraver · 12/02/2011 19:19

BABY.. I think most parents at some point buy their DC's sweets, I know I do. Its just that I am able to say no and dont need 'legislation' or for a shop to hide away sweets. I'm not saying DS doesnt have a moan if I say no and that certainly wont get him any

FWIW.. with DS1 I felt he was pestering too much as we used to go to the shops most days. I realised I was buying more than I felt was good so introduced 'sweetie day' on Saturday. He was quite happy to have just one special day and really looked forward to it, this was when he was circa 3ish. Once in a shop he saw a man buying sweets and started with "Why is that man having sweeties when it isnt sweetie day?" but he went on and on and on

jamfran · 12/02/2011 19:20

Agree grubbalo, the nastiness on here is baffling.

Laquitar · 12/02/2011 19:20

No grubbalo, you missed my point. No superiority at parenting at all, my dc's used to chew the books Oh maybe they see me chew a lot.

MsKLo · 12/02/2011 19:24

You have been treated unfairly grubbalo - but thy is typical in aibu!

MsKLo · 12/02/2011 19:27

I don't think the OP's point is that she can't say no but that - as with supermarkets and the very reason sweets were taken away from the till areas - having the sweets there is manipulative and just wrOng!

bibbitybobbityhat · 12/02/2011 19:28

Roffle.

Of course this type of thread is the perfect opportunity for the highly superior Mothers of Mumsnet to come on and state the bleeding obvious (you can always say no - what really? can I? never knew!) and have a lovely gloat about themselves and their non-demanding offspring.

Ya still nbu, op.

DirtyMartini · 12/02/2011 19:30

Selling by positioning sweets at the checkout of clothing or bookstores is cynical and irritating so I don't think that you are really BU. It seems like people are too busy proving how awesomely firm they are to acknowledge that, even when you are perfectly capable of saying 'no', it is a PITA to have to do this more and more often as a result of totally random shops expanding their offering to include chocolate at the till.

So although I think 'disgraceful' is taking it a bit far, I agree with you up to a point. It is irksome. And my dc are not of the age to be interested yet (DS is 3 but not into sweets really) so this is not a case of Weak Parent protesting too much.

Tee2072 · 12/02/2011 19:31

I think the 'nastiness' including my own is a typical reaction to being told we need a freakin' law about this.

FFS. They are sweets. Shops of all sorts sell them, especially this time of year with Valentine's and Easter. If you don't want to buy them, don't.

It's really not something to waste the law makers time with.

MsKLo · 12/02/2011 19:36

Tee

The op is talking about the cynical marketing and placement of sweets in a children's clothing department! I think she has made a very valid point - this is just not the place for sweets and is done with manipulation in mind! She is not saying don't have sweets but surely a kids clothing dept is not the right place!

Laquitar · 12/02/2011 19:38

Oh ffs! Where are the 'superior mothers'? Are you dreaming? What do you want us to say? Ban all food and make everything illegal?
It is so tiring. When you disagree on these threads you are accused of being 'superior mother'.

DirtyMartini · 12/02/2011 19:38

It's not something I feel strongly about either way. There are regulations governing the advertising of junk food during children's programmes; do those of you who scoff at the law idea think that these regulations were also a waste of lawmakers' time? I've always thought they were quite a good idea. It never crossed my mind to get worked up about them being evidence of a nanny state or whatever.

Tee2072 · 12/02/2011 19:47

Msklo

All product placement is cynical. That's it's job. To sell to people they think will buy it. Children like sweets. So of course they sell them there.

BTW my local Debenhems also had them at the tills in men's. Why? Because adults like sweets as well.

We don't need a law. Or should we outlaw all sweets for everyone? Because, you know, that sort of prohibition worked so well in the US with regards to alcohol.

LibraPoppyGirl · 12/02/2011 19:50

I'm glad to see there are a few here that have actually got the 'point' of what the OP was trying to say.

It's not about not being able to say no, it is just as MsKlo said, about cynical marketing and placement of sweets and done with manipulation in mind.

Now of course we can all resist, of that there is no question, however, it is not unreasonable to feel aggrieved at the ploy of these large companies. It's taking advantage of young kids minds and trying to manipulate them and through them, the parents. Is that right?

As DirtyMartini says about the junk food ads during children's tv, that was a good idea too as those adverts were directed solely at children in a manipulative manner which was considered wrong. Why is this so different?

LibraPoppyGirl · 12/02/2011 19:55

Yes Tee you're right about placement being deliberate, of course it is. I know that supermarkets have specific people whose job it is work out the placement of end of aisle products to it's optimum.

Fair enough. However, I don't think it's right to try to manipulate adults through their children and that is exactly what this is.

With regard to the junk food advertising ban on the tv. Kids couldn't reach into the tv and take the food on offer could they, but it was considered wrong to advertise during primetime children's tv with something aimed to manipulate and was therefore stopped.

Why should this style of manipulation through children be any different?

BabyDubsEverywhere · 12/02/2011 19:56

Oldraver i think you have misunderstood me. I dont want legislation either, we agree!

ziptoes · 12/02/2011 19:58

Hear hear libra. Possible to say no but a pain in the bum.

Also grabby little hands must damage the goods? I often have to wrestle bags of crisps off DH that he can reach from his buggy. I feel sorry for the person that buys that bag afterwards!

ziptoes · 12/02/2011 19:58

soory, that was wrestling DS not DH!

feekychucker · 12/02/2011 20:00

These displays are everywhere. For example, you have been able to buy sweets in topshop for ages. It is a marketing ploy of course but only because so many retailers are struggling at the moment and will try to make money in any way they can.
It's annoying when it is pushed on you like it is in whsmiths but when it is just displayed on a stand I would just try not to look at it.

MrsAlanKey · 12/02/2011 20:03

I get the 'point', I just think that the idea that shops shouldn't make things attractive and easy to buy in case people buy them ridiculous.

Tortington · 12/02/2011 20:03

i watched a brilliant new comedy law program - its american it's called Harrys Law...anyway there cas a law case where an uber fat woman wanted to take the 'big' four fast food giants to court for making her fat

in the pre - trail thingy, the lawyer argued that ...YES she does accept responsability for her actions, but what they are asking is for the fast food industry to also take some responsibility also.

any way...what i amtrying to say is YESYESYES as mothers ofcourse we can say no, WE take responsability for out actions, but large chains like debemhams should also take responsability too

bibbitybobbityhat · 12/02/2011 20:05

Heh heh! I once came back from a trip to the shops with dd in the buggy (it was way back in the wilds of 2002/3 when it was the norm to have forward facing pushchairs) to find she had nicked a pack of odour eaters from our local chemists. Another time we got a tin of condensed milk .

LibraPoppyGirl · 12/02/2011 20:08

MrsAlanKey but this isn't about 'people' as you put it. It's about manipulating children. Is that right?

Tee2072 · 12/02/2011 20:09

But all advertising is manipulation, TV, Radio, Print, store displays.

So what you are saying is that you only want your kids manipulated in a way you approve. That I can get behind!

LibraPoppyGirl · 12/02/2011 20:10

Larf @ ziptoes have images now of you wresting a bag of crisps off of your DH in the supermarket

LibraPoppyGirl · 12/02/2011 20:11

@ Tee I'd rather not have my children manipulated at all, but it does happen and as consumers, yes we have the power to say no. However, that does not make any organisation right to do it!

Flip

1 2 3 4 5