Children’s understanding of TV advertising
Introduction This paper addresses ethical concerns in TV advertising to children. It also briefly introduces the different positions taken by Sweden and the United Kingdom when it comes to targeting young children with TV advertising. The literature on TV advertising to children is reviewed. A research agenda relating to Swedish and British children’s understanding of TV advertising is then outlined.
Background British children and teenagers have a yearly spending power of £4.89 billion (LSE and O2 Money, 2009) and have an increasing influence on family decisions at the problem recognition/initiative stage, which makes them attractive targets for marketers. Children are generally considered to be a ‘vulnerable’ group and the ethics of advertising to children is a controversial subject. In contrast, the advertising lobby views children’s advertising as a form of education, which can help them to grow into confident consumers. Some psychologists and community groups are concerned with the manipulative qualities of advertising and the possibility of indoctrinating children into a life of unquestioning consumerism. The United Kingdom and Sweden have different approaches to the targeting of children with TV advertising. In the UK, it is permitted to target children with TV advertising. Broadcast advertisements are controlled by codes of practice. The Advertising Codes demand that all advertisements are legal, decent, honest and truthful and prepared with a sense of social responsibility, particularly with regard to children. The Codes are considered to be amongst the toughest in Europe and the guidelines for advertising to children are extensive. TV advertising in Sweden, was only introduced in 1991 with the launch of the first commercial TV channels. The Swedish Broadcasting Commission (SBC) is the national authority that oversees television broadcasts within Sweden and determines whether a broadcast complies with the provisions of the Radio and Television Act (RTA). Advertising directed to children under the age of 12 has been illegal ever since 1991. (Plogell and Sundstrom, 2004)
The literature on advertising to children Advertising to children as a research area has attracted interest since the 1970s. Much of the early research was conducted in the United States (e.g. Butter et al, 1981; Donohue et al, 1980; Macklin, 1985; Macklin, 1987). Despite research spanning a long period, no definitive study of children’s understanding of TV advertising exists, and many issues in the area remain ambiguous and contested. For instance, children’s understanding of persuasive intent
develops over time, but is not clear at what age they can be said to comprehend the selling objective. The main argument of those in favour of a ban on advertising to children is that children do not have sufficient maturity to understand the purpose of advertising and, therefore, it is unfair. This is the position taken in Sweden. Supporters of advertising refer to the fact that numerous studies (e.g. Donohue et al, 1980; Macklin, 1987) have demonstrated that children can distinguish advertising from the age of around four. This argument illustrates the confusion surrounding the field; distinguishing advertising is not the same as understanding it and the existing research is contradictory about the extent to which children understand advertising. Consequently, there are two key debates within the literature, namely (1) the extent to which children are able to distinguish advertisements from programmes and (2) the extent to which children are able to understand the persuasive nature of advertising. In terms of the ability to distinguish advertisements from programmes, Butter et al (1980) found US pre-schoolers able to make the distinction. Oates et al (2003) found children in Sheffield, UK, to be able to distinguish advertisements from programmes from the age of eight. Mallalieu et al (2005) found 100% of their 5-7 year old and 11-12 year old US respondents able to make the distinction. Advertising literacy offers an indication of what is meant by ‘understanding’. Young (1986, 1990 in Oates et al, 2001) suggests that for a child to understand advertising, they need to appreciate that there is a source deliberately creating television advertisements and that this source intends to persuade an audience to purchase. For this, children must be able to comprehend that others have different intentions. This is a basic level of understanding and it becomes more sophisticated as the child begins to comprehend who pays for advertisements, who makes them, why they are on some channels and not others, etc. Macklin (1987) distinguished between the informational (assistive) function of advertising (showing what products are available in-store) and the persuasive function, which involves four attributes: (1) the source has other interests than the receiver, (2) the source intends to persuade, (3) persuasive messages are biased and (4) biased messages demand different interpretation strategies than do informational messages. The differences in age at which children achieve this understanding might partly be attributed to how complex a definition of persuasive intent is used by the researcher. It was the belief of the Swedish Consumer Agency that children under the age of 12 have difficulty in understanding the purpose of advertising that resulted in the Swedish ban. The literature demonstrates much conflicting evidence about the age at which children can be said to understand advertising. Donohue et al’s (1980) research suggested children aged between three and six are able to understand the intent of TV advertisements. However, following methodological concerns with Donohue et al’s study, Macklin (1985, 1987) did not find children to possess the same level of understanding, but found five-year-olds able to comprehend the ‘informational function’. More recent research seems to suggest that there is a sharp increase in understanding from the age of eight (Chan, 2000). Oates et al (2003) argue that understanding of advertisements is not linked solely to age and contend that some
children are not advertising literate by the age of ten. Bandyopadhyay et al (2001) maintain that at eleven or twelve, children are aware of, and can recognise and fully understand the selling intent behind commercials. Lawlor and Prothero (2008) contend that there is a lack of research attention being accorded to the recipient’s perspective (rather than the perspective of the advertiser), relating in particular to how a child decodes advertising and the possible meanings, beyond selling, information and persuasion that it may hold for the recipient. The researchers highlight that there is no consensus in the literature with regard to either a definition or the constituent components of the concept of advertising literacy. At one level, advertising literacy can be seen to prevail where a child can understand the commercial intent of advertising, the vested interest of an advertiser and that it is different to a programme. At another level, advertising literacy can be said to occur where children appreciate the use of advertising techniques, strategies and production values. A further level of literacy would be where a child’s understanding of advertising may be used in a wider context, for instance as part of the child’s social interaction. Whereas earlier research tends to ask, ”do children understand the advertiser’s perspective?”, Lawlor and Prothero take a different approach by asking, “how do children read advertising?”.
Research to be undertaken As Sweden and the UK differ in their approach to TV advertising to children under 12 (illegal versus allowed with restrictions), the author intends to carry out a programme of research to investigate what possible implications this may have for older children (aged 12-16). The comparison of the situation in two different European countries with a different regulatory framework, contribute to the originality of the research. On a general level, the author will question whether Swedish children (aged 12-16) are “missing out” and are less sophisticated in their understanding of TV advertising compared to their British contemporaries (e.g. in terms of advertising appeals and strategies used, level of critical understanding, etc). The study will also investigate how Swedish and British children differ in the ways they make use of, and interact with, advertising (as a source of product information, as material for the interaction process with peers, etc).
Conclusions This paper addresses issues associated with TV advertising to children. The literature on advertising to children is reviewed. Two key debates within the literature are identified, namely: (1) the extent to which children are able to distinguish advertisements from programmes and (2) the extent to which children are able to understand the persuasive nature of advertising. Future research to be undertaken with Swedish and British children is briefly outlined.
References Bandyopadhyay, S., Kindra, G. & Sharp, L. (2001). Is television advertising good for children? Areas of concern and policy implications. International Journal of Advertising, 20, 89-116. Butter, E. J., Popovich, P. M., Stackhouse, R. H. & Garner, R. K. (1981). Discrimination of television programs and commercials by preschool children. Journal of Advertising Research, 21: 2, 53-56. Chan, K. (2000). Hong Kong children’s understanding of television advertising. Journal of Marketing Communications, 6, 37-52. Donohue, T. R., Henke, L. L. & Donohue, W. A. (1980). Do kids know what TV commercials intend? Journal of Advertising Research, 20: 5, 51-57. Easier (2009). Kids boost UK economy by £5 billion a year, www.easier.com. Lawlor, M.-A. & Prothero, A. (2008). Exploring children’s understanding of television advertising – beyond the advertiser’s perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 42: 11/12, 1203-1223. Macklin, M. C. (1985). Do young children understand the selling intent of commercials? The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 19: 2, 293-304. Macklin, M. C. (1987). Preschoolers’ understanding of the informational function of television advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 14: September, 229-239. Mallalieu, L., Palan. K. M. & Laczniak, R. N. (2005). Understanding children’s knowledge and beliefs about advertising: a global issue that spans generations. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 1 (Spring), 53-64. Oates, C., Blades, M., Gunter, B. & Don, J. (2003). Children’s understanding of television advertising: a qualitative approach. Journal of Marketing Communications, 9, 59-71. Oates, C., Blades, M. & Gunter, B. (2001). Children and television advertising: When do they understand persuasive intent? Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 1: 3, 238-245. Plogell, M. & Sundstrom, J. (2004). Advertising to children in Sweden, Advertising & Marketing to Children, Jan-March, 65-68. Plogell, M. & Wardman, J. (2009). Advertising to children in Sweden, Young Consumers, 10: 4.
