Marketing to kids. Thoughts?

[amazon]

Having skulked around the sidelines of Mumsnet for AGES I feel it's time to come out and SAY something. Hello.

I'm concerned by the PERSIL thing on the top of this FANTASTIC website. It's marketing thinly disguised as philanthropy. Presumably it's going to lead teachers into "suggesting" that we all buy Persil. Persil buy a few crayons and bits of paper, we all love them and think they're great, and meanwhile they can carry on polluting the environment/testing on animals etc. So we will end up with very artistic children without a world to live in.

Sorry to come in with such a heavy one on my first posting, but it's been bothering me.

Me too,amazon. I also dislike the Tesco Computers for Schools, Walkers campaigns etc. Luckily my kids' school doesnt do much of this as I would get very annoyed about it. I have heard of children being handed out notebooks from Macdonalds etc. Horrible. I know schools, and presumably Mumsnet too, say they need the advertising revenue but there is a cost: environmental, edicational, social.
In addition, I find the Persil thing interferes sometimes when I try to do a search. Grr

So far I've not minded whatever Carrie/Justine do to keep mumsnet up and running including the annoying persil advert.

But in terms of principles and advertising to children I hate it! Since having my dd I have become a slave to television advertising. She's 3 and phrases like "I need that", "I want that for my birthday" (3 weeks past) have become common place. Television ones appear to have become more accepted - either that or we're not complaining enough but I do agree that now companies have come up with newer clever more subtle ways.

The Consumer's Association recently did an article on advertising in this way. They reviewed Tescos - computers for school scheme, Walkers crisps, books for schools. Did you realise that over £220,000 worth of shopping has to be bought to buy a school a single computer. 4,490 vouchers will provide a school with a scanner. That's £44,900 worth of shopping for an item which Tesco sells for £80 and which would cost less if bought wholesale by the school.

Saying all this I still dutifully collect my vouchers and hand them in. But I don't go out of my way to do so - I wouldn't buy walkers crisps in preference to others, but if I have them I hand them in.

I think I'm just immune to advertising. Does anyone else feel like that? I buy things because they seem like good quantity or quality for money -- where "quality" has nothing to do with brand names or brand loyalty. Many years of hard work I think i am finally breaking DH of his addiction to Kellogg's products.

So why does the Persil stars or Tesco's computer vouchers things actually work to get people to buy more of their products? I just don't get it....

Zebra, I find that I am the same these days (being a SAHM and not very flush being the cause, I guess). My first Mumsnet posting was about Huggies tokens (save tokens to buy 'discounted' toys) - I worked out that you had to spend about £80 on Huggies to save £1! Maddening stuff.

As for TV, the kids only watch CBeebies, so no ads there... although dd1 can spot a Teetubbies/Tweenies/Fimbles product in the supermarket aisle from a mile off.

FWIW Amazon, here's Unilever's (manufacturer of Persil) policy on animal testing:

In Unilever, non-animal testing is the rule and animal testing is the exception. Unilever does not undertake animal testing or commission others to do such testing on our behalf unless it is necessary to meet our health, safety and environmental obligations or it is demanded by government regulators or other official bodies. Before any animal testing is carried out, our internal control procedures require senior management to certify in writing that there is no other way of proceeding. We do not test finished home or personal care products on animals unless demanded by the regulatory authorities in the few countries where this is the law. In such cases we still try to convince the local authorities to change the law.

Reducing animal testing

It has been Unilever policy to reduce, refine and replace animal testing by substituting alternative methods for over 20 years. The vast majority of Unilever products have in the past and will in the future reach the consumer without any testing of any material on animals

I'm not too worried about ds exposure to advertising (although I like to limit it) - mainly because we do live in a commercial world and he needs to learn that advertising isn't the same as reality and that he can't have everything he sees. I don't see how completely shielding him from advertising is going to help him learn that skill.

Does anyone remember the Mork & Mindy show? The one where Mork buys everything he sees because he's completely taken in by all the TV ads (he's never seen advertising before as he's new to the planet). Always makes me smile, but reminds me that I do want ds to grow up more financially responsible than his mother, and part of that is to learn immunity to advertising!

I personally do not see the harm of collecting tokens for schools.They need everything they can get as they are underfunded as it is. What concerns me about "MARKETING TO KIDS" is the way clothes manufacturers and stores(for stocking them) are encouraging our children mainly girls to walk around like mini "Britneys". Crop tops, hipster pants etc are seen as "trendy". I find this is morally wrong as we should let our girls grow up gradually. Any thoughts?

I don't see the problem with the Tescos vouchers - they're not "forcing" you to buy their products. It's not the same as Walkers or Persil (or the Nestle box tops) who want you to buy their particular brand over any other. I shop in Tescot anyway so maybe that's why I don't see the problem - one supermarket is pretty much the same as others really and I shop with whichever one happens to be closer.

A school may need to collect £220,000 of vouchers for a free computer but that's still a computer they've not had to pay for so what's the problem? It's not as if they (or anyone else) had to pay £220,000 for a new computer.

Now, advertising during children's programmes is another matter. Imagine my pride when I found DS1 (4) joining in word perfect with one of those loan ads!!

I agree about the grown up clothes for kids too. some of the things on offer (mainly for girls really) are completely inappropriate for the age they're aimed at.

I don't have a problem with the 'by the way' marketing. By that I mean that I buy the product anyway and 'by the way' I get a token.

I don't go out of my way to shop at Tesco although DD's school welcomes the vouchers if you have them. Ditto the Walkers book tokens - I never buy anything but Walkers so school benefits but we don't buy extra crisps just cos there are tokens from March - July.

I buy my Persil from CostCo so the packets aren't promotional and I'm not about to pay more to get it from the supermarket so I can donate something to school.

I also dislike marketing to kids, but I am a complete mug when there are offers on. I will always buy a 3 for 2 offer or buy one get one free if I want a similar product, or feel we can use it!

My bug bear if food products with characters on. You can buy everything with their favourite characters on, and this is the worst time for me. I used to end up with tweenie pasta, yoghurts etc etc, but now I allow my kids to choose one item when we go shopping. This can be anything, and has been melons, milk, bread as well as more 'kiddy' stuff. So it seems to be working!

Soupdragon. The article in the Which magazine concerning tokens was a long one and an interesting read and I'd be hard pushed to abbreviate it appropriately here but to have a go...

Basically it highlighted the unexpected side effects. Firstly most people appear to be under the impression that they themselves were earning enough tokens for a computer. That schools were placing more and more pressure on parents to collect these tokens and that this was having an adverse affect on families on lower incomes. Some schools felt the pressure that parents expected to be able to see these computers and the statistics showed that very few schools actually managed to collect enough tokens for an actual computer. It was also noted that neither Walkers crisps nor Tescos encouraged healthy eating, something the government are trying to encourage in schools. Last year Tesco offered additional vouchers and incentives on certain foods such as Coca cola, Sunny delight, Pringles - basically all the snack food that the government is trying to discourage.

As I said before it was an interesting article highlighting things that would not have occured to me. Tescos in particular has shown some extremely clever tactics enabling it to stay a market leader and I'm fascinated by what they will come up with next. Saying all that I still shop at Tescos (because I like their produce) and still dutifully collect the tokens and hand them in, because ultimately I agree - a free computer (if the school manages it) is still a free computer. But I do like to be aware of how I am being manipulated by advertising and don't think of Tescos as quite as "giving" as they'd like us to believe in their adverts.

It all hinges on whether you usually shop at Tescos. like SueW says, for me it's "by the way" marketing. Tescos are getting nothing extra from me (I still go to Sainsbury's for a bigger choice of Smoothies ) but DSs nursery gets free CDROMS. Nursery collected the special scoops from SMA Progress last year but they only got some from me because that's what I usually bought.

I've not seen any of the 'extra voucher' offers in Tescos this time round actually. I remember them from last year though and I think there was only one product I used/fancied tying that offered them. No way would I ever buy Sunny Delight or Coke, not even for a computer token or 10!

I'm trying to think if I'd switch to Sainsbury's for my main shop if DSs nursery were collecting tokens from there for something. I don't think I would because it's further away and smaller. Maybe I'm more immune to these tricks than I thought

Soupdragon, I feel like you about the Tesco vouchers - I shop both there and at Sainsburys, our stores are about the same size, and I don't go out of my way to spend more at Tesco's when the vouchers are on.

I was very glad when they reduced the required spend from £25 to £10 though. Presumably you still have to spend the same amount altogether for the school to get something, but it used to be a bit frustrating if you found at the checkout you'd spent about £23.50 and had nothing to show for it! (Fairer for low income families too.)

Sainsburys did do an equipment-for-schools scheme some of the time but it was dead complicated, you had to register your own Reward card number with the name of the school, and the school had to be registered too. I never managed it and I don't know if they will do it any more now the card isn't administered by them.

Amazon, I don't think you need to worry about teachers being blindly led by such marketing. The ones that post here seem like a smart, thoughtful bunch.

The reason for the ads is, as has been mentioned, to keep the site going. Here's a post from Justine explaining on another thread :

... We have basic site costs to cover - server hosting, admin, telephone etc. Subscription plus a little bit of advertising revenue is currently meeting these costs. Four people work on mumsnet roughly three days a week. As yet we have not made enough revenue to pay any salary to these people. This is why we need to a) increase number of people who subscribe b) sell more ads (and/or increase the number of people who come to the site so we get more revenue per ad) c) sell some books - mumsnet makes around £3.00 per copy d)scratch around to find any other source of revenue that we can. We are not a charity (though obviously having worked on mumsnet for three years now unpaid it sometimes feels like it )
For further discussion on the parlous state of mumsnet's finances, take a look at this thread
Best, Justine

I've seen Carrie, Justine, Rachel and tech say that they work for free. This isn't exactly true... if you read between the lines of Justine's post, you'll notice that there are 3 women with small children (Justine and Rachel just had babies and Carrie has a toddler, I believe, and all have older children) who are working 3 days a week. And, presumably, need childcare and therefore have that expense (and that's no small expense!). So they have been pouring money and time into making this site what it is. (Thank you, mumsnet team!) In effect, they pay to work here.

Anyway, that's all just to back up my feeling that, in this case, the more revenue the better, no matter what the source. I've been assuming that you are a paid subscriber (not only does every little bit help, I'm sure, but it has to be a boost for them to see that people are willing to pay to keep the site going). If not, it's easy peasy. Go here to see how. But please don't complain about the ads if you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is.

Thanx JJ for all the info.Will be subscribing to Mumsnet today as I think it is an excellent site. The ads personally do not bother me.I also read the info on the "Which" article on this thread and I cannot believe that consumers can be so gullible. I shop at Tescos because I want to. I collect the vouchers because they are on offer.I will buy persil when it is on offer like so many other things. Buy one get one free are o.k even though they lurk at the bottom of the freezer for months but they will get used.What is the harm of trying to help out the schools if we can and have got it for nothing anyway?

Amazon, welcome, this is one of my bugbears too. I quite agree, philanthropy it is not, but I see why mumsnet have accepted the Persil advertising. I don't think it's the same as schools accepting corporate funding and I just ignore it. If Persil want to think I look at it every time I click on this site and it means mumsnet get some revenue then OK, I can live with it. I don't buy Persil though and wouldn't solely as a result of advertising or promotional tokens.

Doormat, if schools are underfunded (and they are) we should blame the government and local authority spending IMO, rather than letting commercial organisations pretend to help by offering computers or books in exchange for product loyalty. And these token promotions are marketing to kids. The idea, I assume, is to encourage brand recognition and loyalty in children and parents and to drive additional sales (and profit).

Soupdragon, you say "...what's the problem? It's not as if they (or anyone else) had to pay £220,000 for a new computer." Well, surely the consumer paid £220,000 (if that's the figure) for the computer! There's no way these companies are donating the equipment or the cash: they will have built the promotion cost into pricing and it will have been more than covered by increased profitability.

Wills, exactly on the Sunny D, Walkers etc front. There was an interesting article a while ago about News International and their (legal) avoidance of corporation tax i.e at the usual rate their contribution would have netted the exchequer £92m in one tax year. This contribution could have bought lots of books for schools (I know, it might not have been spent that way but) but Newscorp would rather books for schools were 'bought' via token promotions dependent on buying a Murdoch paper. There's an article on the subject here

Amazon, have you read Fast Food Nation? It's an interesting read with a scary section on the subject of advertising to children, especially in schools. There was a brief thread about it a while ago here

I really don't think most parents care much about this though, I think most don't think about it. They may choose to go with the promotion without really considering the issues involved and many are prepared to do anything (except lobby their MP, get involved in local politics, complain about it, stuff that might actually help, eventually) to help cash strapped schools without really thinking through the ulterior motives of the companies concerned.

WWW, "Well, surely the consumer paid £220,000 (if that's the figure) for the computer" No, the consumer has bought £220,000 worth of groceries which, at least in my case, they would have bought anyway. The price of my shopping did not go up when this promotion started and I doubt it will go down when it ends.

I can see this descending into a heated argument! My views are applicable to me alone and I don't see a problem with the Tescos vouchers because they make no difference to the way I normally shop. They may affect other people though.

I actually think the UK consumer gets a good deal from supermarkets (now farmers and suppliers are another story). Prices have consistently fallen in recent years and competition is intense. Tesco has been the leader in cutting prices so it certainly hasn't been funding its promotion through higher prices. If I had an objection to a company's approach to promotions, I would take my business elsewhere. As a matter of interest the £220,000 computer cost probably resulted in a profit to Tesco of around £6,000.

And on Newscorp, the government should simply change the law on taxation if it is unfair / wrong. I can't blame a company from taking advantage of legal ways of minimising tax.

Soupdragon - I'm with you on this one and agree that it was only vague comments. Was about to post a similar message.

WWW I read all the comments and I found them interesting reading.As a consumer I have boycotted Nestle,News group and McDonalds for years.I don't believe in their tactics.It is the Governments and local authorities fault for the underfunding in our schools.We as consumers have a choice on how we spend our money.I am more interested(I posted it earlier) in the way our children especially girls are being encouraged by the media and clothes manufacturers/retailers to look like mini "britneys". I feel this is more dangerous.It seems they want our children to grow up faster than nature intended.

Soupdragon, I don't want a row! Definitely not. You're entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. But would the consumer really have bought those groceries anyway? If they would have what was the point of the promotion? If promotions and advertising didn't work, companies wouldn't spend money on them. Promotions are just that - tools for product promotion/placement and for getting consumers to buy more product. More product sold usually = higher profit. So maybe you would have bought those products anyway but surely some people bought things they wouldn't have because of the promotion? I don't understand fully how the Tesco campaign works since we don't have one here so I'm completely happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.

Croppy, the UK supermarkets offer a good deal to consumers mainly at the expense of their suppliers. Indeed, the OFT has taken issue with this and with the way UK supermarkets exercise their buyer power. Where does the £6k profit figure come from? Not doubting it, just interested in the source. And just because it's legal to avoid taxation in this way doesn't make it morally defensible IMO. Disney paid 30% corporation tax over the same period and, whilst I don't think they're a great company either, it is worth noting that not all major corporations think it's reasonable to avoid taxation in the way that News Corp has. But you're right, accounting rules should be changed to ensure that the loopholes don't exist.

Doormat, I agree with your post. WWW, as I said in my message, consumers in the UK get a good deal but not suppliers and in particular farmers. Although having said that the margins of the large multinational suppliers have risen in recent years. Tesco's turnover last year was £23.65bn and their net profit was £830m therefore their profit margin is 3.5%.

News Corp's structure is completely different to that of Disney.

I don't object to the Persil ad here if it helps Mumsnet. I don't buy Persil (we can't get it here anyway, but I nearly always buy supermarket own brands) but I do concede that quite a few parents may switch brands as a result of clever marketing. What does offend me (maybe too strong a word) is stuff like Bob the Builder yoghurt, Tweenies pasta etc and I simply refuse to buy it. My kids know my reasons why and although they don't like it, they have no choice until they buy their own groceries

Likewise, I will occasionally buy them McDonalds, but refuse to buy the Happy Meal and pay more for a piece of plastic crap which will end up in the bin before the week is out as well as adding to the cost of the food.

The worst ad I have seen is one on T.V. last night (one of the cable channels but it is probably also on in U.K) is one of those debt 'solution' agencies - you know the type which offer credit to people with poor credit ratings etc. This one called 'Purple Loans' said it would donate 10 quid to a charity which raised money more terminally ill children if you were accepted by them for a loan for that 'kitchen of your dreams' or the 'Cruise you have always longed for with cash left over'. Does anyone else think this is just a bit sick? Sorry, just realised this is off the topic of marketing at children- more 'using' children as a marketing tool.