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.

Croppy, even if News Corp's structure is different it's irrelevant since my point was that not all large corporations avoid taxation in this way. They both operate in the UK (and elsewhere) and IMO avoiding taxation isn't morally defensible behaviour, whether it's legal or not.

We seem to be agreeing that supermarkets treat suppliers unfairly. So if retailer margins have risen but consumers aren't being treated badly (i.e prices haven't risen either) where do you think the increase in margin came from? Increased pressure on suppliers maybe? Anyway, this is beside the point and I don't want a fight so I'll stop now.

Crikey I don't want a fight. Simply meant that if Disney's structure and business was more like News Corp they may well adopt more tax minimising structures as New Corp does. Its just that they (like most other companies) are not able to. I think you'd be hard pushed to find any company that doesn't seek to minimise its tax liability as with all other costs. That BBC article is wrong anyway, interest is always tax deductible (and not tax avoidance) but bizarrely they then seem to calculate News Corp's tax rate on the basis of earnings before interest.

UK supermarkets have cut costs in recent years chiefly through better logistics, expansion of stores and the move into non-food products. At the same time, their operating margins have fallen due to the more intense competition. Most suppliers margins have actually gone up in recent years but this is not clearly not the case for farmers and small individual suppliers.

WWW, you're right that the aim of the promotion is to increase shopping at Tescos, otherwise there would be no point (not assuming Tescos feeling overly philanthropic). Personally I dislike advertising that is aimed specifically at kids and would like to see the UK ban such advertising (just like advertising cigarettes). Adults are old enough to decide how they want to spend their money and be swayed or not by advertising, kids aren't. I think the tax argument is a bit of a red herring - all companies will try and avoid tax as much as possible, and as long as they don't breach the law, that's just life (says I, paying out cash for babysitting...).

Agree totally Florenceuk. I pay cash for babysitting too and don't blame people for setting up their Nannies as companies etc. Also agree that kids aren't fair game for direct advertising.

Of course the promotions are aimed at getting people to spend more at Tescos but they achieve this by people switching from Sainsbury's etc. I can't believe that people buy more groceries than they need in order to get vouchers, simply that they switch their shopping from other establishments.

Having worked in a retail environment for several years, I'm quite cynical about the effectiveness of promotional activity in the general sense (not the BOGOFs etc)
It's actually very hard to quantify the impact of a promotion as there are may other factors which affect sales.
Then again there's the belief that you have to do defensive promoting or else you will lose your existing customer base.
Personally I shop for my convenience - I don't have time to seek out the best bargains, so Tesco's gets a lot of my business whether they do voouchers, clubcard points or not.

Something that really does annoy me is the adverts for pet insurance on the children's TVchannels - I don't think it's appropriate to show injured animals to my small kids.

Florenceuk, you're right, the tax issue is a bit of a red herring I suppose I was trying to point out that it seems unfair (to me) that News Corp don't pay lots of tax to our government that could have been spent on books for schools/health/any number of things and although they promoted a books for schools offer their tax contribution would potentially have made much more difference. It wouldn't have made them the extra money gained by their accounting methods though, it's true. Anyway, that's the last I'll say on tax.

Croppy, we'll probably have to agree to disagree but I don't think additional profit comes from people simply buying the same product but switching establishment. I'd have thought it much more likely that profit from promotions is due to consumers buying more of a 'known' product or buying an entirely new product because of a promotion. I say this based on my working experience but I haven't got stats handy to back it up. However I think these schools promotions are less about profit (although that's useful) than about product recognition and brand loyalty, leading (the companies hope) to increased market share.

I think promotions aimed at children and/or aimed at getting into our schools are wrong. (Oh, do you really, I hear you say ) It's a creep of commercialism into our classrooms and I don't think big business has any place in schools.

Agree with you on the schools thing in general. On promotions, I was only really talking abut Tesco's computers thing which as I understand it isn't tied into specific products as such but depends how much you spend instore. I'd be suprised if people were spending more on their weekly grocery bill than they would otherwise simply to get vouchers.

WWW, yes, this consumer would have bought those groceries anyway. I've not changed my shopping habits one bit with the Computers promotion.

The way the Tescos one works is that for every £10 you spend on shopping (any shopping, any brand) you get a voucher to give to your school/nursery who exchanges vast amounts of them for computer stuff. DSs nursery exchanged something like 2000 of them for 7 CDROMs last year. I can see how some people may feel under pressure from their child/child's school to maybe shop at a different store but it doesn't affect me that way and it doesn't make me spend any more than usual.

Don't worry, I wasn't accusing you of wanting a fight, but this thread has some of the tell tale signs of becoming a "heated" discussion.

Most major supernarkets make their profits through, farmers, small businesses and selling other consumer goods, i.e tv, and electrical goods. So, on my own hobby horse, I do not help them with any promotions they have, may seem a bit petty, but they don't support me so why should I support them? Yes I do my weekly shopping with Safeway, but I do not help them in anyway with their fresh meat, and least of all their NEW ZEALAND LAMB!!!!!, no harm to New Zealand, but hey come one they can get bloody good lamb and other meats in this country, without having to import the dammned stuff! But, saying that most of the consumers that go into the supermarkets don't actually know the correct price for fresh meat,and just pay up for what the supermarkets are asking.

Question, how many people here actually know the correct value of beef,lamb or pork or what the arable farmers (veggie folk) are getting?

Soupdragon, I didn't know how the Tesco promotion worked so thanks for the explanation. I'd assumed it was similar to Walkers etc. so my arguments were based on this type of promotion.

Tigger, we've 'talked' on a similar subject before haven't we? No, I don't know the true value but please do tell us. And hey, you didn't kill the thread, I did if no-one else posts (it was you who thought you were a thread killer recently wasn't it?)

Tigger, I used to love my meat from the farmers' market. It was cheaper and certainly better than the supermarkets. Our butcher, though, would age the meat himself, which added value, at least to us. Are butchers ok? We loved ours, but we also loved the farmers' market people.

And I had been wanting to ask you.. what do you know about BSE in Switzerland? I've just recently heard that there's an official "There's no problem" despite having a few hundred cases. Any insight?

Lordy. How fantastic/scary to have elicited such a response.

I want to talk about meat and supermarket exploitation of farmers/suppliers as well but I just need to respond to some of the earlier posts.

1.Sorry this is my fault for not being clear. I was talking about the fact of Persil in schools, not mumsnet's need to put the ad. in.I totally understand why it's needed, and I'm not criticisng Mumsnet for needing it. And I don't need to be told to put my money where my mouth is, JJ! I'm sure none of us is going to switch to persil from that ad. It's more the fact of multinationals running our schools which is terrifying - the fact that teachers have no choice but to accept these PPFI's even if they don't support those companies.I don't in any wise think teachers are thick or whatever was suggested.
2.Croppy check out Unilever's environmental record I will post on it when I dig it out; it is atrocious.

Sorry to just drop in and out!

Just a quick aside, I was pleased to hear ( am I right?) that Mcdonalds is not as popular in the UK as it once was and profits are suffering. I think the company's recent foray into offering a more varied menu has an air of desperation about it.

I wonder if it's got anything to do with all those children of 10 years ago who clamoured for happy meals? They have now grown up and, as teenagers do, rebelled.

In a way you are doomed to failure if you market to children - isn't it natural to cast off and denounce many of your childhood crazes as you reach adolescence and beyond? I wonder how many 6 year old Sunny Delight fans will then go on to give this drink to their own children?

jj I agree with your big post lower down, "don't complain about the ads if you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is"

The mumsnet team do a great job, and any revenue source is fine by me

I'm actually not too comfortable with the "put your money where your mouth is" type comments, Jasper and jj, though I do see where you're coming from and admire your loyalty. I only subscribed to mumsnet on the basis that I was an addicted fool and loved it and thus was keen to offer any support I could to keep it running. I'm not sure that it's realistic or desirable to expect this sort of commitment from people who've only just discovered the site and perhaps don't yet know if it's somewhere they'll visit regularly. The very thought might even put them off. Also it took me a while longer than I'd have liked to subscribe because I went through a bit of a skint period and, in fact, it was during this time that I found mumsnet most useful and lifelinelike. I was pleased that I could still contribute trenchant and not so trenchant views during this time and think it would be a shame if people felt they could not do so because they haven't subscribed.

Re the persil thang: Advertising seems all pervasive in this capitalist culture of ours. Do agree with amazon et al that it's particularly annoying to watch branding creep inexorably into our education system as schools scrabble desperately for funding. Soon we'll probably have lessons sponsored by companies in the same way that TV programmes are: "And now children, your maths lesson, sponsored by Diet-Cherry-Pepsi."

I do also agree that, given that mumsnet operates within this evil capitalist system it will, until the revolution, have to get dosh one way or another and advertising is a key way to start... That reminds me- must use my filthy bourgeois lucre to purchase a copy of the book soon!

You are right Tigermoth. McDonalds is in quite a bit of trouble. Sales are falling in both the US and Europe. They have started to introduce 'healthier' options such as fruit with their Happy Meals although yesterday they also announced they would be adding more sugar to their buns to improve the taste which seems to be missing the point somewhat.

Have to say I've got to come out in Scummy's and Batters favour as well. All too often it is the people that can't afford to subscribe that need the support most of all. I too am not comfortable with the idea of people sitting comfortably out there whilst mumsnet struggles however I think those of us that use it a lot are so desperate not to loose it that we contribute whatever we can to ensure it continues. I hope that as people join in our threads/conversations that they too start to feel like this and therefore start to subscribe whatever they can afford.

But I agree with you guys! My point was that it's not on to say that this is a great site then complain about the advertising if you haven't subscribed. Which is what I thought you were doing, amazon -- sorry if I misread your message. My take was that you had an issue with mumsnet accepting the ad and would rather it not be there.

Jj, we are now approaching the time when most cattle (cows) are mostly born after 1998. After January of next year cattle that are born after 1998 will be able to return into the food chain. Although we have some cows that are over 10 years old and still going strong!, but, most of them have passports and most are born after 1998. Cows mainly went into the foodchain for mince, burgers or pies.

McDonalds, now there is a different story, they import their meat from South America, so do burger King, Red Hen. Wimpy is the only "fast food" outlet that actually buy British Meat. So therefore we completely ban anything other than a Wimpy if the situation arises!

WWW, the present price of fat cattle is around £1.60 to £1.90 per live kilo, working out at about £3.00-3.20 per kilo dead weight, lamb for a whole lamb in the market you can pay anything from £30 - £48 depending on the breed. If you seel fat cattle or lambs through a Slaughterhouse, they only pay up to a certain weight, 40 kilos for lamb and 300 kilos for a beef animal. So if we send lambs to them that are 50 kilos dead then we only get paid for 40 kilos and they get the 10 kilos free, same with the cattle.

Sorry Tigger2 to cross over your meaty ones - just to respond to some earlier posts.

WWW Thanks for directing me to that earlier thread - I have not yet read Fast Food Nation but I have read No Logo and a number of other books on the subject and I am currently waiting for a report from Ethical Consumer on marketing to kids, anyone read it?

Jasper - if you look at my original post I said the website was FANTASTIC. I also said I was talking about the FACT of multinationals advertising in schools, not mumsnet's unfortunate but inevitable need to advertise on the site. and Carrie and Justine I don't know if you read these, but I hope you understand that too. I AM NOT DISSING YOUR SITE! I love it. I support it. OK?(I don't yet know how to do a smiley face, but imagine one HERE....)

The point is do we sit back and take it as our children's lessons ARE sponsored by diet cherry coke, as ScummyMummy says might happen in the not too distant future and it will - or can we as concerned parents make a concerted effort to prevent this. I'd be very interested to hear from teachers on this one; also any adbusters or secret starbucks sprayers.

I am against private education, and I have a career which I love. But I would seriously consider hom ed-ing my kids if I thought their science, art, literacy, anything lessons were being sponsored.

There is a world of difference between the other types of marketing - tweenies yogurts, britney stylee tops - in an area where you know you are conducting a smiple financial transaction in the marketplace ,and unrepentant, in your face marketing entering a place which is supposed to be STATE run and politically neutral and have an intrinsic value which is not monetary. Education is not only meant to equip our children to themselves become wage slaves to big companies. Surely?

amazon, I can see what you are getting at, but how do you stand on industry-sponsored university facilities and research grants?

For example?

I think that most if not all Universities rely on corporate sponsorship one way or another. As Tigermoth says, research projects are often funded by industry and it isn't uncommon for new educational facilities to be funded at least in part through corporate sponsorship/donation. There was a fuss recently whent he University of Nottingham accepted £4m from BAT to set up a Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility. Some individual degree courses are sponsored by companies i.e. Bradford's MSc in engineering's main sponsor is Ford while most research fellowships have an industry sponsor.