I think that with anything there are some things that are okay and others that aren't. In this case, a toy in a happy meal probably isn't too dangerous.
In the McDonald's happy meal case, the restaurant can offer a toy if they want. The decision as to whether the child gets the toys or eats the food is solely left up to the individuals in charge of the child. As with any other product, a child has no real way of obtaining the product unless the parents allow it. So all in all advertising to children is virtually harmless and should not be banned. A parent has the right to raise their child as they see fit.
I agree with Byron. Parents have the right to choose whether they are going to take their children to McDonald's or any other fast food restaurant for that matter. Yes, children will want to go there to get the toy, but it is a parent's responsibility to say yes I am willing to feed you fast food or no you are going to have to start eating healthy. Marketing to children is not what is hurting the children, it is what the parents are choosing to do with that marketing.
I do not think companies should be banned from advertising to children because children are a strong target market. I agree with Courtney that the parents make the choices and they can tell their children no if they do not want them to have the product being marketed to them like the happy meal toy.
As soon as I saw California I knew it would be something strange. NOt sure what goes on out there but that is a different topic. This is something that shouldnt even be argued. If they want to put toys or 100 dollar bills in happy meals is up to them. A happy meal target market is little kids who cant even get there without somebody giving them a ride. This all falls on the more mature person to make the call
I don't think companies should be banned from advising to children. First, it depends on the product the company is advising. If it is healthy toy, interesting educational books or museum for kids. Second, parents should also be responsible for kid's consumption.
I also think that companies should not be banned from advertising to children as they are a good target market. Like what everyone else have been discussing, in the end it is the parents that ultimately make the decision whether or not to buy the meal for their child. I remember asking my parents for happy meals and I do not always get the meal every time I ask for it.
I don't think that McDonalds, or any other company, should be banned from advertising directly to children. As previously stated, the purchasing rests on the parents & how they choose to raise their child. I don't see any issues with McDonald's marketing approach.
It really depends on the motive of the company. I guess in a way it is exploitation. Look at all the toy commercials that air mainly on children's tv channels or atleast during the cartoon time period of programming. The commercials are so loud too. With the McDonalds incident, maybe we should just stop giving anything away for free. A credit card gives you so many months no interest and transfer a balance. A car dealership gives you gas for a year. Online casinos give you 100% comp on your deposits. The military gives out signing bonuses. Sometimes a lawn mower will come with a free dump trailor. I mean ,really? I don't even see how this could be a case. Maybe the government shouldn't give her the tax return she qualifies for. Or the tax breaks for her two children. There is incentives for almost every business out there. That is how they get you to come to their store or restaurant. She needs to learn to either say no, buy the toys for her kids herself, or find somewhere else to eat. Don't create some bogus lawsuit because then I'll have to pay more when I go through the line.
Companies should be able to advertise to children as long as the content of the commercial is suitable. In a previous blog there was discussion about Abercrombie advertising a "push-up binkini" to seven year olds. This is a perfect example of what shouldnt be done. Ads for children shouldn't make them ask questions concerning their physical attributes.
However, many commercials are great for children. Most toy commercials are very creative and help retailers make a lot of money, especially around the holiday season.
Advertising to children, when done on a childs level, should be acceptable....It still comes down to the same thing all other topics dealing with children do and that is it is ultimately the parents responsibility to either buy or not buy the product being advertised.
i agree with what pretty much everyone else said i think its ok for companies to market towards children. I also feel it is the parents responsibly to monitor what their children eat.
l I think advertising to children should be done very carefully. In my opinion there are a lot of healthy advertisements for children, some advertisements promote toys and games that encourage learning. These kinds of advertisements can actually be helpful to parents. But when there are advertisements promoting negative products there should be some regulations for it. The parents should have control over what children can buy up to a certain age but even if the adult doesn't allow children to own something I think it can still change their opinion and views on life.
I don't think companies should be banned from advertising to children, but I agree that it should be done with caution. Abercrombie advertising a push-up bathing suit? Not the smartest idea. But McDonald's advertising a toy probably worth a dollar isn't going to hurt that much.
To play devil's advocate, I can see the point for banning some advertisements geared to children. The arguments used here are the same arguments used to ban the "Joe Cool" commercials for Camel cigarettes. Most would agree that children should not be smoking cigarettes because they are harmful to one's health (the theory being that a child cannot understand the consequences thereof, but an adult can). As such, cigarette commercials that appeal to children should (even in my opinion) be banned. By the same logic, a child may not be able to perfectly understand the consequences of bad eating habits. Thus, I see why some don't want makers of (arguably) unhealthy products advertising to children.
However, personally, I agree with the others. It's up to the adult to say "yes" or "no" to their child. Perhaps McDonalds should make better disclosure (for instance, maybe put on the package WARNING: excessive overeating of certain foods may cause obesity, heart disease, and other health problems). However, food from McDonalds is (unlike cigarettes) safe if consumed in moderation. As such, in general, I am of the opinion that, as long as the company makes disclosure to the customer, CAVEAT EMPTOR.
I think advertising to children is how a lot of companies like McDonald's makes their money. It's smart. If parents don't want their kid to eat there, they should't take them there. I do agree with Hannah however... if companies are advertising push up bathing suits to children, thats when it's probably going to far.
I agree that some things are "taking it too far." However, I don't think that includes advertising for toys in a happy meal. Trying to blame mcdonald's for childhood obesity isn't the answer either. The parents are the ones who are buying it and then later complaining about their children being overweight.
I don't think that companies should be banned from advertising to kids. If that is their target market, reaching out and marketing to them is the smart thing to do for their company. It is the parents' responsibility to chose if it is something that they want their child to have or participate in or not. Parents should be capable of saying no to their children. They are the ones purchasing or allowing whatever it is.
I think that as long as the advertising is positive, it would be fine. However, we have to remember that children are very impressionable and pick up on everything they see. If they see another child acting spoiled or disrespectful in an advertisement, they will more than likely try to act that way as well. Advertising to children could never actually be banned because companies would find a way to "bend the rules a little", so it is up to parents to say no to their children and also do their best to monitor what their children are exposed to.
I don't think that advertising to kids is going to hurt anything. Ultimately in the end whatever the kid gets is up to their parents. So, I do not think that advertising to children should be banned.
I don't think that advertising to children should be banned, because in the end, it is up to the parents to control what their kids get. In this case, I don't think a kids meal toy is a big deal and should not be banned.
McDonald's should not be banned from advertising to children. If you took away happy meals with toys, you would be taking away a part of childhood. I can still remember the feeling of excitement I would experience when opening a happy meal and finding a new toy. Yeah, there are some parents who abuse the happy meal and purchase one for their child on the hour, but there also parents who use the happy meal in moderation as a reward for good behavior. As a result, do we punish generations to come because of some bad parenting? I think oftentimes we write things off as bad--such as McDonald's marketing to children--because we fail to get to the root of the problem. The root of the obesity problem is not McDonald's marketing to children, the root is simply parents not doing their job to ensure that their children develop healthy eating habits.
I think that companies should advertise too kids. Kids are a big target for many major comapnie, and thats what a comapnies goal is is to sell their products. Kids see things that they like and want just like older people.
No I do not think that companies should be banned from marketing to children. Call it what you want but everyone is trying to make money in business and if companies must limit themselves on how they market the judicial system will be clogged with bogus claims that say somebody's marketing campaign is directed towards children. Many products are made for children market those products them. Children are a much better influence than a commercial directed towards adults about toys.
I think for McDonalds it is very smart to market to children, ultimately it is the parents responsibility to monitor what their children eat and let them know that fast food is unhealthy and can cause obesity. I don't really think they should have to stop putting toys in the happy meal, but why not put something in there that might motivate them to lose weight?
I think that McDonalds should not be banned from advertising to children, or any other company. As Bobby said, it ultimately rests on the parents to make the final decision. Something else that I thought of was when I was a kid, seeing a toy on TV and knowing that I wanted it. I guess there is now the internet for kids to look at prospective birthday or holiday gifts. But I'd much rather my child be watching TV to get ideas rather than surf the web.
McDonalds is like a palace of fun for little children, they shouldn't be banned from advertising. They are smart for marketing to the children, but it is the parents' responsibility to maintain moderation of everything in their lives. They should keep the toys, and as far as obesity is concerned, it's not their fault! McDonalds' marketing to children does not make these kids fat. Don't eat it everyday if you think it is that big of a problem!
I believe children have a place in the market as well as grown ups. They have a right to see and view products and help develop their decision making capabilities.
Americans live in a society that boasts continually to the rest of the world about the great number of freedoms that we have here. The truth of the matter however, is that many of the freedoms that were meant to be guarantees by and for the people have been litigated into obscurity. My personal perception of the U.S. today is that we are less a Democracy and more a Capitalist engine which we have grown accustomed to for our prosperity. The phrase “economic freedom” is touted continually by politicians and business alike and it may possibly be the most unhindered freedom left to us in this country. The greatest danger to the further erosion of our rights and freedoms in this country are these various advocacy groups that hammer government institutions, businesses, and individual citizens with their continual abuse of our civil justice system. In this instant case we are speaking of a group that calls itself the “The Center for Science in the Public Interest”. Seriously, can McDonalds’ practice of placing toys in Happy Meals really be considered science? Further, is it in the public interest for groups such as these to attempt to dictate whether or not Americans should be able to enjoy toys with their Happy Meals? The answers to these questions, in my opinion, are no and no. Mrs. Parham and The Center for Science in the Public Interest believe that giving toys to children is a dangerous practice and should be stopped at all cost. A cost that they surely believe should be taxed to American society, our judicial system, and the precious few freedoms that are left to us. Perhaps Mrs. Parham and The Center for Science in the Public Interest and persons like them also believe that the U.S. Congress should also pass legislation instituting a new administrative branch of government in this country, one which dictates every action and decision a parent is allowed to make for one’s child. And why not, it might possibly keep people like Mrs. Parham and businesses like McDonalds from outrageously abusing children by giving them hamburgers and toys. Reflecting on the matter at hand, I believe that the greatest outcome concerning Parham v. McDonald's Corporation et al, 11-511 would be for McDonalds and other businesses faced with similar legal matters would be to civilly sue The Center for Science in the Public Interest and others like them out of existence.
I think that with anything there are some things that are okay and others that aren't. In this case, a toy in a happy meal probably isn't too dangerous.
ReplyDeleteIn the McDonald's happy meal case, the restaurant can offer a toy if they want. The decision as to whether the child gets the toys or eats the food is solely left up to the individuals in charge of the child. As with any other product, a child has no real way of obtaining the product unless the parents allow it. So all in all advertising to children is virtually harmless and should not be banned. A parent has the right to raise their child as they see fit.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Byron. Parents have the right to choose whether they are going to take their children to McDonald's or any other fast food restaurant for that matter. Yes, children will want to go there to get the toy, but it is a parent's responsibility to say yes I am willing to feed you fast food or no you are going to have to start eating healthy. Marketing to children is not what is hurting the children, it is what the parents are choosing to do with that marketing.
ReplyDeleteI do not think companies should be banned from advertising to children because children are a strong target market. I agree with Courtney that the parents make the choices and they can tell their children no if they do not want them to have the product being marketed to them like the happy meal toy.
ReplyDeleteAs soon as I saw California I knew it would be something strange. NOt sure what goes on out there but that is a different topic. This is something that shouldnt even be argued. If they want to put toys or 100 dollar bills in happy meals is up to them. A happy meal target market is little kids who cant even get there without somebody giving them a ride. This all falls on the more mature person to make the call
ReplyDeleteI don't think companies should be banned from advising to children. First, it depends on the product the company is advising. If it is healthy toy, interesting educational books or museum for kids. Second, parents should also be responsible for kid's consumption.
ReplyDeleteI also think that companies should not be banned from advertising to children as they are a good target market. Like what everyone else have been discussing, in the end it is the parents that ultimately make the decision whether or not to buy the meal for their child. I remember asking my parents for happy meals and I do not always get the meal every time I ask for it.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that McDonalds, or any other company, should be banned from advertising directly to children. As previously stated, the purchasing rests on the parents & how they choose to raise their child. I don't see any issues with McDonald's marketing approach.
ReplyDeleteIt really depends on the motive of the company. I guess in a way it is exploitation. Look at all the toy commercials that air mainly on children's tv channels or atleast during the cartoon time period of programming. The commercials are so loud too. With the McDonalds incident, maybe we should just stop giving anything away for free. A credit card gives you so many months no interest and transfer a balance. A car dealership gives you gas for a year. Online casinos give you 100% comp on your deposits. The military gives out signing bonuses. Sometimes a lawn mower will come with a free dump trailor. I mean ,really? I don't even see how this could be a case. Maybe the government shouldn't give her the tax return she qualifies for. Or the tax breaks for her two children. There is incentives for almost every business out there. That is how they get you to come to their store or restaurant. She needs to learn to either say no, buy the toys for her kids herself, or find somewhere else to eat. Don't create some bogus lawsuit because then I'll have to pay more when I go through the line.
ReplyDeleteCompanies should be able to advertise to children as long as the content of the commercial is suitable. In a previous blog there was discussion about Abercrombie advertising a "push-up binkini" to seven year olds. This is a perfect example of what shouldnt be done. Ads for children shouldn't make them ask questions concerning their physical attributes.
ReplyDeleteHowever, many commercials are great for children. Most toy commercials are very creative and help retailers make a lot of money, especially around the holiday season.
Advertising to children, when done on a childs level, should be acceptable....It still comes down to the same thing all other topics dealing with children do and that is it is ultimately the parents responsibility to either buy or not buy the product being advertised.
ReplyDeletei agree with what pretty much everyone else said i think its ok for companies to market towards children. I also feel it is the parents responsibly to monitor what their children eat.
ReplyDeletel I think advertising to children should be done very carefully. In my opinion there are a lot of healthy advertisements for children, some advertisements promote toys and games that encourage learning. These kinds of advertisements can actually be helpful to parents. But when there are advertisements promoting negative products there should be some regulations for it. The parents should have control over what children can buy up to a certain age but even if the adult doesn't allow children to own something I think it can still change their opinion and views on life.
ReplyDeleteI don't think companies should be banned from advertising to children, but I agree that it should be done with caution. Abercrombie advertising a push-up bathing suit? Not the smartest idea. But McDonald's advertising a toy probably worth a dollar isn't going to hurt that much.
ReplyDeleteTo play devil's advocate, I can see the point for banning some advertisements geared to children. The arguments used here are the same arguments used to ban the "Joe Cool" commercials for Camel cigarettes. Most would agree that children should not be smoking cigarettes because they are harmful to one's health (the theory being that a child cannot understand the consequences thereof, but an adult can). As such, cigarette commercials that appeal to children should (even in my opinion) be banned. By the same logic, a child may not be able to perfectly understand the consequences of bad eating habits. Thus, I see why some don't want makers of (arguably) unhealthy products advertising to children.
ReplyDeleteHowever, personally, I agree with the others. It's up to the adult to say "yes" or "no" to their child. Perhaps McDonalds should make better disclosure (for instance, maybe put on the package WARNING: excessive overeating of certain foods may cause obesity, heart disease, and other health problems). However, food from McDonalds is (unlike cigarettes) safe if consumed in moderation. As such, in general, I am of the opinion that, as long as the company makes disclosure to the customer, CAVEAT EMPTOR.
I think advertising to children is how a lot of companies like McDonald's makes their money. It's smart. If parents don't want their kid to eat there, they should't take them there. I do agree with Hannah however... if companies are advertising push up bathing suits to children, thats when it's probably going to far.
ReplyDeleteKayla Williams
I agree that some things are "taking it too far." However, I don't think that includes advertising for toys in a happy meal. Trying to blame mcdonald's for childhood obesity isn't the answer either. The parents are the ones who are buying it and then later complaining about their children being overweight.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that companies should be banned from advertising to kids. If that is their target market, reaching out and marketing to them is the smart thing to do for their company. It is the parents' responsibility to chose if it is something that they want their child to have or participate in or not. Parents should be capable of saying no to their children. They are the ones purchasing or allowing whatever it is.
ReplyDeleteI think that as long as the advertising is positive, it would be fine. However, we have to remember that children are very impressionable and pick up on everything they see. If they see another child acting spoiled or disrespectful in an advertisement, they will more than likely try to act that way as well. Advertising to children could never actually be banned because companies would find a way to "bend the rules a little", so it is up to parents to say no to their children and also do their best to monitor what their children are exposed to.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that advertising to kids is going to hurt anything. Ultimately in the end whatever the kid gets is up to their parents. So, I do not think that advertising to children should be banned.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that advertising to children should be banned, because in the end, it is up to the parents to control what their kids get. In this case, I don't think a kids meal toy is a big deal and should not be banned.
ReplyDeleteMcDonald's should not be banned from advertising to children. If you took away happy meals with toys, you would be taking away a part of childhood. I can still remember the feeling of excitement I would experience when opening a happy meal and finding a new toy. Yeah, there are some parents who abuse the happy meal and purchase one for their child on the hour, but there also parents who use the happy meal in moderation as a reward for good behavior. As a result, do we punish generations to come because of some bad parenting? I think oftentimes we write things off as bad--such as McDonald's marketing to children--because we fail to get to the root of the problem. The root of the obesity problem is not McDonald's marketing to children, the root is simply parents not doing their job to ensure that their children develop healthy eating habits.
ReplyDeleteI think that companies should advertise too kids. Kids are a big target for many major comapnie, and thats what a comapnies goal is is to sell their products. Kids see things that they like and want just like older people.
ReplyDeleteNo I do not think that companies should be banned from marketing to children. Call it what you want but everyone is trying to make money in business and if companies must limit themselves on how they market the judicial system will be clogged with bogus claims that say somebody's marketing campaign is directed towards children. Many products are made for children market those products them. Children are a much better influence than a commercial directed towards adults about toys.
ReplyDeleteI think for McDonalds it is very smart to market to children, ultimately it is the parents responsibility to monitor what their children eat and let them know that fast food is unhealthy and can cause obesity. I don't really think they should have to stop putting toys in the happy meal, but why not put something in there that might motivate them to lose weight?
ReplyDeleteI think that McDonalds should not be banned from advertising to children, or any other company. As Bobby said, it ultimately rests on the parents to make the final decision. Something else that I thought of was when I was a kid, seeing a toy on TV and knowing that I wanted it. I guess there is now the internet for kids to look at prospective birthday or holiday gifts. But I'd much rather my child be watching TV to get ideas rather than surf the web.
ReplyDeleteMcDonalds is like a palace of fun for little children, they shouldn't be banned from advertising. They are smart for marketing to the children, but it is the parents' responsibility to maintain moderation of everything in their lives. They should keep the toys, and as far as obesity is concerned, it's not their fault! McDonalds' marketing to children does not make these kids fat. Don't eat it everyday if you think it is that big of a problem!
ReplyDeleteI believe children have a place in the market as well as grown ups. They have a right to see and view products and help develop their decision making capabilities.
ReplyDeleteAmericans live in a society that boasts continually to the rest of the world about the great number of freedoms that we have here. The truth of the matter however, is that many of the freedoms that were meant to be guarantees by and for the people have been litigated into obscurity. My personal perception of the U.S. today is that we are less a Democracy and more a Capitalist engine which we have grown accustomed to for our prosperity. The phrase “economic freedom” is touted continually by politicians and business alike and it may possibly be the most unhindered freedom left to us in this country. The greatest danger to the further erosion of our rights and freedoms in this country are these various advocacy groups that hammer government institutions, businesses, and individual citizens with their continual abuse of our civil justice system. In this instant case we are speaking of a group that calls itself the “The Center for Science in the Public Interest”. Seriously, can McDonalds’ practice of placing toys in Happy Meals really be considered science? Further, is it in the public interest for groups such as these to attempt to dictate whether or not Americans should be able to enjoy toys with their Happy Meals? The answers to these questions, in my opinion, are no and no. Mrs. Parham and The Center for Science in the Public Interest believe that giving toys to children is a dangerous practice and should be stopped at all cost. A cost that they surely believe should be taxed to American society, our judicial system, and the precious few freedoms that are left to us. Perhaps Mrs. Parham and The Center for Science in the Public Interest and persons like them also believe that the U.S. Congress should also pass legislation instituting a new administrative branch of government in this country, one which dictates every action and decision a parent is allowed to make for one’s child. And why not, it might possibly keep people like Mrs. Parham and businesses like McDonalds from outrageously abusing children by giving them hamburgers and toys. Reflecting on the matter at hand, I believe that the greatest outcome concerning Parham v. McDonald's Corporation et al, 11-511 would be for McDonalds and other businesses faced with similar legal matters would be to civilly sue The Center for Science in the Public Interest and others like them out of existence.
ReplyDelete