With the rising incidence of obesity among children in the U.S., a group is calling for “an end to commercialization of childhood.” A case of luring kids to eat junk food by enticing them with toys. The most recent target is McDonald’s Happy Meal. It ought to be a global campaign. And every food company guilty of the practice should be targeted — including makers of breakfast cereals who like to occasionally include a toy inside the box.
We’ve been there, believe me. There was a time when the girls would whine for a Happy Meal just to get the toy inside. Fortunately, that phase was short-lived. Very short-lived. Don’t encourage it and they stop whining after a while and they collected something like five toys throughout their childhood (well, excluding the ones that the doting grandmother — my mother — supplied). My belief: buy food because you want to eat it, not for something associated with it. In the first place, the toy inside a Happy Meal isn’t free. The meal is so packaged so that the customer pays for the toy. So, never mind the freebie mentality.
But, more than that, I have a thing against mixing eating with playing. I never felt comfortable with the set-up of having a playground inside a restaurant. Kids have a right to their time for play but not during meal time. I honestly cannot remember a time when my daughters ventured inside one of those plastic playgrounds.
The sad truth, of course, is that such a set-up — Happy Meals and plastic playgrounds — have become the norm. And it’s not like the marketing strategy is new nor unique. It is something that has been employed by just about every business entity. No, not the toys, but the illogical association which, ironically, makes a product more beguiling to consumers.
You don’t believe me? Try this. Why are alcohol ads crammed with half-naked women? Because the message is that drinking is a manly thing and that is attractive to women. Argumentum ad hominem, obviously, but will consumers notice? The businessman knows they won’t — he has hired a psychologist who has studied the behavioral patterns of consumers and this expensive hachet man assures him that since time immemorial, there are foolproof formulas — all based on logical fallacies, believe it or not — that prove how easy it is to manipulate consumer trends. Today’s fast food chains, including McDonald’s with its Happy Meal, are just applying the principles of those foolproof formulas.
Formulas. Yes, plural. Let’s have another example. Why do companies pay millions to celebrity endorsers?
You have Aga Muhlach for Jollibee, Piolo Pascual for Max’s Chicken, Kris Aquino for Vicki Belo, KC Concepcion for some shampoo that I can’t recall right now. And we all know this is a global practice. You remember that Toyota Altis ad with Brad Pitt? Cosmetic companies hire the most beautiful models and actresses. Sporting goods companies choose — who else? — top athletes.
Why? Are these people experts? Are Muhlach and Pascual, for instance, credible gourmands? Is Brad Pitt well versed in auto matters? No and no. But they manage to sell the products they endorse. Why? This is not even an example of “appeal to authority” (a fallacy of defective induction) because consumers know that these personalities are not authorities when it comes to the products that they endorse. Yet, still…
And it makes me wonder. Is the average consumer simply too gullible and malleable? Is a certain level of education necessary to be able to discern? Or is it just a matter of common sense?
When I was new in my adopted country, I really missed the tv ads that we have in pinas. Dito kasi most tv commercials don’t use famous actors and actress. They are simple and straightforward. Not like in pinas where tv ads are like production numbers – complete with storyline, lead actor/actress, etc. I think here, ads are direct to the point to avoid misinterpretation which may cause legal concerns later on for the company. Government values the phrase “truth in advertising” so much. Kaya nga most products na galing sa pinas have to have their nutrition information revised. Meron pa ngang isang junk food na may nakalagay na “enriched with vitamins” na kailangang patungan ng sticker otherwise the distributor might get sued kapag may consumer na nagpatest at lumabas na walang vitamins or penalized kapag hindi pumasa sa test ng government. Sana someday maging ganito katibay ang protection ng philippine government sa mga consumers.
The advertising industry here practices “self-regulation.” And “truth in advertising” becomes relative to the agenda of the company. Amazing how women fall for those shampoo commercials where the models’ hair have been treated and prepped for hours (if not days) prior to the shoot.
I really wonder how people can believe those shampoo commercials, it practically screams “FAKE!”
Pero, bumebenta, di ba?
I think ad companies get their ideas from consumers, and not the other way around. If you air a straight-forward and objective/factual ad, people here wouldn’t buy it–the lack of smoke and mirrors would render the product ineffective in the eyes of Pnoy consumers. (Example: sodium naproxen. One company used a generic old couple climbing a hill top, extolling the benefits of the drug; another company hired Michael V and Vhong Navarro, who in their cheesy jingles never once mentioned the benefits of the product–the lattter gets more airtime and people buy it more.)
Somehow I don’t feel pity for the gullible consumers–though some of them may be ignorant, ignorance can always be remedied by personal effort and the desire to know the facts.
Ignorance can be remedied if you know you’re ignorant. But how many realize that?
Well, you’ve got a point. And that’s why they say “ignorance is bliss.” Gullible consumers are mostly satisfied with their purchases, which is why they come back for more. They make their own lifestyle choices.
It seems to me that they only speak-up/complain when they don’t get what they paid for–a missing toy in a happy meal, for example.
But I think there is enough information out there (not a lot, but just enough) to counter the false claims of food advertisers. News/public service programs regularly feature medical professionals who warn against smoking, too much fast food, too much salt, etc, but people only notice when they’re already sick and on their deathbeds. I don’t know, but it seems that they refuse to listen or just don’t care.
So, its more of illogical bullishness than ignorance. My goodness, that sounds even worse!
My sentiments exactly. But the formulas still work because most of the time, the endorser evokes some deep emotion that trumps our logic. The extreme case is impulsive shopping. If ad agencies and marketers relied on cognitive faculties of the brain, they’s have a very hard time selling products.
buying is an emotional act, rarely an informed logical act, especially for retail products that need a few minutes decision making. its about feeling good and selling hope. And a lot of people buy it because it makes them feel good at the moment, and lets them hope they get the same results.
by nature man is emotional and is not always understanding. especially in the philippines where objectivity is unheard of.
Jhay and DP, I’m getting the feeling that fighting for consumer rights as an advocacy is a useless exercise… And if you’re right about buying being an emotional thing, I must be heartless robot.
no, not really, you are just an informed individual, like the poster below said, you are being conscious of your buying decisions. i am like as well and sometimes worse, i go through an analysis paralysis dilemma on certain buying projects because i want to stretch the value of my money (i am kuripot). however, truth be told that many do not really exercise proper reasoning when buying. the i want and me culture, the catchy media/advert just make it worse, plus endorsing these products through famous people who many would like to emulate (especially in pinas its a celebrity shocked country), compounded with the ‘keeping up with the joneses’ mentality and no consumer rights regulations in place.
an idea: someone should start a consumer rights advocacy TV program. we have this in the netherlands and its one of the high time rater shows. products and services are evaluated objectively by third parties, many being put on the spotlight and challenged by the program and millions of consumers. topics are selected by the program but mainly via suggestions and complaints from consumers as well from trends.
Well, Ms. Connie, you’re not. I’m sure you feel that pleasurable tingle down your spine when you spot a long-awaited kitchen gadget on bargain price; or if you chance upon a new condiment or spice that you’ve been itching to try, or when you sit down to a restaurant that serves good food AND memories.
In these acts, you exchange your hard-earned money for something that makes your life better. And it’s the same with me. And Jhay, and everyone else. The difference is that some people are conscious of their decisions, and some are not.
The question is: when people cannot distinguish between harmful and safe purchases, should the government step in? (Clearly, in the US, it does–they ban trans fats, they’re very careful with ad claims, etc). The next question would be: who’s to say what’s harmful and not harmful? Argh, too many questions = brain exploding. hahahahaha.
You have a point there hahahaha
Democracy is anchored on free enterprise. Government should ONLY step in by regulations on:
1. Serious health issue.
2. Fraud or deception.
And even on notorious case like cigarettes (both health issue and deceptive ads), it can only limit but not kill it.
The beauty of democracy is you can believe what you want and later can sue for harm and damages. There are second or third tier business as result (research, legal, consultants, insurance, etc).
ms. connie… there’s a website that speaks precisely against this “dumbing down” of the consumer by commercials, media, movies, even music videos. the articles in the website attempt to expose the strategies used by media to “brainwash’ the minds of the people. for instance, studies have come out exposing high fructose corn syrup and MSG to be unquestionably hazardous to health, but the corporations and bigwigs that stand a lot to lose from these negative findings try to convince people otherwise with the use of very convincing ads and sneaky marketing strategies.
http://vigilantcitizen.com/?p=4051
http://vigilantcitizen.com/?p=4116
i think you’ll find it very interesting. =)
I went beyond the two linked articles. Nice site! Very nice.
The whole point of buying is where you put its value. Is it in the item or is it your feeling. Consumers had been users of items that has no value whatsover. Say, cigarettes – your craving, or coke – your happy memories. Yes, coke is only sugar but always in the market place to remind you of happy memories.
Try to go over you household purchases and it is common to see that you got most of them essentially because you feel good (with the exception of fish, meat, fruits and vegetable that you got because you NEED to).
For me, I’ve no issue in who’s endorsing and how they promote a product. I’m cognizant however of their effect which ca be negative or positive for the product. Remember how Michael Jackson put Pepsi back into competition with Coke. Or how Tiger Woods being left out by the products he has been endorsing.
For some or for most beer consumers, FPJ did nothing significant in increasing SMB’s sales. There have been speculations that he was paid to endorse SMB so that he could not be used by a competing beer product for an specified period. (GMA endorsing a product?)
I could be mistaken with these as I’ve been lately observing. Both Jollibee and McDo are focusing their promotions on what their corresponding products are. Not so much anymore on who’s endorsing them.
How about this one – “No Approved Therapeutic Claims” that goes with every advertisement of herbal medicines in our country. Everything seems to be business as usual. Then it became unusual when the DFA issued an administrative order requiring that this be translated in Pilipino – “Mahalagang Paalala: Ang (pangalan ng gamot) ay hindi gamot at hindi dapat gamiting panggamotsa anumaang sakit”.
This raised a lot of howls from herbal drugs manufacturers. They claim that the it is not its direct translation though they were admitting that their herbal medicine products are just food supplements.
He he he he. Tell that one to the regular users of Tongkat Ali, Rhino and Honeymoon Teas (endorsed by Tonton Gutierres).
Re McDonald’s, although lately I have been bringing our own food whenever Evan and I want to go outside most of the day, there was a time we would go to McDonald’s to buy a happy meal for him because 1.) the toys are cheaper 2.) the toys are not available in the stores and I know he will like it (e.g. How To Train A Dragon characters, Avatar, Airbender, Astroboy etcetera.) If they are available they would cost anywhere from $8-$40 compared to the $4 Happy Meal. My son might associate McDonald’s with toys but we can still go in there and come out without a Happy Meal. The same way we can go inside Target (a department store chain), browse in the toy department for 20 minutes and come out without a toy. For both times without a scene and he’s 4 years old.
My son has seen those cereal boxes with Scooby Doo, Spongebob characters etc. get excited and of course asks me to buy it for him. I use those moments as an opportunity to educate him on why those “food” is not good for him and how just because Scooby Doo is in the box doesn’t mean it will taste better, that it’s just still cereal. Surprisingly he never insisted on buying them although I always prepared that if he does and he has meltdown then we will be out of the store as fast as I can drag him lol
I have read about many groups the same as you mentioned protesting about McDonald’s and their toys, I would would initially think how they have a point but at the same time it’s a very simple thing for me – if they don’t like the toys and their children makes life hard for them because they don’t buy the toys then just steer clear of McDonald’s.
Of goodness people..get over yourselves and have some fun for a change. Advertising is supposed to be adventurous and intriguing…..it gives into the human need and desire to enjoy life and see something that captivates them. That is all part of us being imaginative and “non snooze boring” creatures. Advertising may stretch the truth, but as long as we realize that we may not always get the woman or the man from putting on a particular cologne/perfume…then its cool. Most of us wouldn’t not remember a product unless its presentation and message did not capture our attention. Also, have you ever considered….use your imagination this time…that when you see advertising it goes for connecting with the audience on a deep emotional level….going straight for the audience’s desires and dreams? Yeah, it sounds too gushy…but that is what advertising does. Unless you capture the emotion and adventurous desires of your customers, you might as well be in another line of work.
BTW: THere is nothing wrong with mixing play with eating. Life is meant to be enjoyed not sit around and twiddle your thumbs doing the same old thing…..we have enough people living a boring old life…and adding more play and fun to it brings in the spice of life. Eating food can be fun, can be exciting, and can be memorable…..so, mixing play with it is a great idea. Let kids be kids..they will have enough time being an adult who wished they had more fun or made fun of the everyday routine when they were kids.
Long life the Happy Meal!
Advertising is also supposed to be truthful rather than misleading.
I learned a lot from this thread.. Thanks!