Your views on children as peer-to-peer marketers

[KatieMumsnet]

Agnes Nairn, a Business School Professor and co-author of Consumer Kids, will be responding to a review on marketing practices using children and would love to hear your views and of any experiences you've had.

Last July the Bailey Review, Letting Children be Children recommended to government that "the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) and other advertising and marketing bodies should urgently explore whether, as many parents believe, the advertising self-regulatory codes should prohibit the employment of children under the age of 16 as brand ambassadors or in peer-to-peer marketing - where people are paid, or paid in kind, to promote products, brands and services."

An example of this would be when Mattel recruited 7 year old girls online to promote Barbie Girls MP3 players to their friends and gave them rewards based on the intensity of their marketing activity. Or the 7 year old twins recently employed by Weetabix to promote the cereal ?on their most active days.? These recruitment activities are sometimes online where children are given incentives to 'like'? products on Facebook or write positive blogs and comments about a brand.

In response to the Bailey Review, some parts of the advertising industry have created a voluntary best practice code but CAP has just launched a review to find out if the ban should be formally put into its self-regulatory code along with the other advertising rules and regulations.

· Should this ban be part of the advertising self-regulatory code (which means industry, including the Advertising Standards Authority) imposes sanctions on companies who break the ban)?

· Should it be completely illegal?

· Should there just be a voluntary code which promotes a ban but does not enforce it?

· Or should there be no ban at all?


· What do you think about under 16s promoting products in this way?

[Himalaya]

I would feel about my 8 year old doing it, but ok about my 13 year old (also old enough to get a job).

Kids do a lot of peer to peer marketing informally of the products and brands they like. My 8 year old has made you-tube product review videos and is an avid watcher of other kids' Lego reviews and "how to" videos. If a child made a great video and Lego sent them some kit for example I think that would be fine.

Other brands they are passionate ambassadors for (unpaid) are Marvel Comics, Warhammer and skateboard stuff - where they do a lot of swapping and talking about kit and brands they like. I would feel
warmer about these kinds of sub-culture brands reaching out to kids than consumer goods companies, I would be really careful with food marketing, given that most food marketed to kids is crap.

[ripsishere]

It looks to me, bar a couple, that the concencus is overwhelmingly saying it should not be allowed.
I wouldn't like my DD used in this way, but each to their own. She has sufficient nous to make her own choices.

[Whenthetoadcamehome]

It should be illegal until age 18.

[Bonsoir]

It should most definitely be illegal. Children are increasingly brought up and educated to be nothing but producers and consumers of ephemeral goods. We urgently need to rethink what children are learning about being human and to refocus on timeless skills and the greater contributions of mankind to civilisation.

[swallowedAfly]

illegal imo. it's surely easy to make it illegal under 13 giving labour laws. i'd personally like it illegal for the whole of childhood. but then i'd also like to make advertising to children illegal full stop so i'm obviously going to want having them doing the advertising to be illegal.

[MoChan]

It should be illegal. It's hard enough to fight the tide of marketing influences as it is; children seem to be increasingly growing up to measure themselves, in terms of their success and their happiness, by their material possessions. I think this sort of stuff only adds to that problem.

[nickelbarapasaurus]

Is peer-to-peer what I do?

When I take a picture of Eleanor "reading" a book and put it on the website?
is that counted?
I don't like what Mattel did with the Barbie thing.
I see nothing wrong with using children to promote things (ie, see children using them or give them freebies to show their friends etc), but giving them rewards based on how well they "sell" stuff to their friends is just wrong.
and of course children should be used in adverts for children's stuff -it would look weird otherwise.

[KatieMiddleton]

Ooh you book-pusher you Nickel!

[morethanpotatoprints]

I think properly regulated there is nothing wrong with children advertising brands. I don't approve myself so would never put my children forward for this type of work. To some it may seem unethical but nobody has to let their dcs see the images if they don't like them. What about say a brand of dancing shoe, musical instrument endorsed by a musical or dancing child, should we stop this then. If I see a product that my child likes from an advert promoted by a child I ask why she thinks that product is a good idea. If it is food/sweets I ask/ tell her the ingredient and provide explanation as to why I don't agree. The exact same as I would for any advert.

[GinPalace]

I think it is utterly immoral and should be illegal. Whoever started the whole thing should be ashamed of themselves. It exploits the emotional world of the child and the importance they place on peer approval, and is a materialistic exploitation of a vulnerable time in life for profit. Despicable practice.

[Jux]

It is a vile practice and should be banned.

[deepfriedcupcake]

Makes me cringe. I avoid letting the boys watch too many ads and especially ads by kids. Would be very happy for it to be banned.

[flapperghasted]

Yes, it should be part of the self regulatory code ban,
Yes, it should be illegal. You shouldn't be able to pimp out your kids as advertisers. And kids should be allowed to get on with playing, not given a role as the voice of a product. It's horrible.
No there shouldn't be a voluntary code.
Under 16s are already too heavily involved in consumerism. We need to give our kids good values, not teach them that pushing any old crap in front of their friends is a good way to get on in the world. Rewarding kids for consuming is bonkers. And anyone under 16 is still a child and should be treated that way, despite being in a society where you are pushed into adulthood at an ever decreasing age. Let's start rewarding kids for being public spirited, kind to each other and industrious, rather than teaching the vacuousness of publicity and self promotion.

(can you tell this makes me a little beet angry?)

[TheCreepingLurgy]

Not good, not good at all. Totally against. Bad ethics.

[StellaAndFries]

I'm totally against it, I feel it should be illegal for under 16's at the very least.

[ThreadWatcher]

Im with all the chorus of nay sayers. Peer to peer marketing by children is vile.

[lionheart]

Awful to use children as an advertising resource in this fashion. As if the commodification of childhood itself weren't bad enough.

[threeleftfeet]

Of course it should be completely illegal. Children should not be paid (with incentives, freebies, cash or any benefit) to manipulate their peers.

What kind of a society will we be creating if we teach DCs that their opinions are for sale?!

[Chaotica]

I'm totally against it too. I don't know how enforceable a ban would be in law (since firms would just pretend that the children chose to recommend to their friends). I'm tempted to think of some way to subvert the process though.

[chocoroo]

Interesting, I wrote my dissertation on something similar 11 years ago.

It's very common for children, or at least teenagers, to be used as part of a marketing strategy for popular music - McFly were a big example of this I believe, but schools tours for boy bands have been going on for years.

I partly think a bit of it can't hurt and could even teach youngsters about advertising and the media but it would have to be controlled or monitored in some way by parents etc.

[itsthawooluff]

Is there nothing which can't be turned into a commodity and exploited in this society? Agree with previous comments above - vile, exploitative and immoral.

[StarlightMaJesty]

But isn't wearing an obvious label peer to peer marketing?

[MaxineQuordlepleen]

I think it's a really bad idea - I totally agree that it's one of the worst excesses of the commodification of childhood. I think it should be legislated against.

[LynetteScavo]

Not good.