Well not all middle aged people but most. The best target is actually my Dad. =)
Thanks for reading, I’m glad you enjoyed it.
Criticism / Rack Off Regulation
RACK OFF REGULATION
Sione Murray
This week, the federal government will consider passing laws aimed at restricting the way we present our products to Australian youth.
It is vital these laws do not progress from the development stages as the effects of their implementation would not only be detrimental for us, who make our livelihoods from advertising, but the balance which has existed for years between the youth consumers and advertisers of Australia will be irreparably damaged.
These laws should be quashed purely on the basis that our market in Australia is a capitalist market. As soon as laws such as these are applied, the basic principles that characterize a successful capitalist economy begin to erode. The range of choices that can be provided from advertisers under this style of economy will be restricted by the proposed laws – the advertiser loses AND the consumer loses.
The proponents of these laws say they are designed to prevent children consumers from being exploited by advertisers and the corporations they represent. However, as we well know, not all of us are exploitive. In fact, many advertisements are informative with a good number of them raising awareness for the topical issues affecting our society. The consumer advocates say these types of advertisements will be exempt under new laws but this is not an option. These laws must either be applicable to all facets of advertising or none of them. Restricting some advertisers and not others is just another example of the way these laws will cripple our capitalist market.
That said, one thing we can count on if the laws do go ahead is that they will not affect the government funded ad campaigns proliferating our media outlets: don’t drink and drive; cigarettes are bad; don’t snort, smoke, inject or ingest illicit substances et cetera. What are their motives in producing advertisements such as these? The reply from the high powers would be that ‘we are ensuring the public’s safety and well-being’. And yet surely they are aware that by ‘keeping the public safe and well’, they are conditioning a healthy work force, resulting in a strong economy? They are advertising to the youth of Australia, their future workers, manipulating their mindsets and exploiting their viewing time slots, so that later on they might make a profit. The majority of us advertisers are just trying to make a living by doing the same thing; why must they deprive us of that?
These laws are being pushed by the self-righteous in our community who believe they are somehow privy to information that eludes us lesser mortals; much like the food fascists running our children’s school canteens, these people prance about on high moral-horseback, their noses held higher, brazenly pointing fingers at anyone and anything they do not agree with. And under closer examination, their ideas do not hold up.
The consumer protection brigade has put forward the outlandish idea that when a product is presented to a child, we as advertisers have a guaranteed purchase. If only it was that simple! Imagine if everyone who saw a Peugeot ad in their lifetime went out to their local car dealership and bought the thing! We’d have some very stylish traffic jams, not to mention an entire nation in some serious debt…
I believe the role of the advertiser in what those delightful consumer advocates label the ‘commercialisation of children’ is greatly exaggerated. Many of them seem to believe that it is up to us what is produced and consequently advertised. What they cannot yet comprehend is that is it is up to them, the public, what is created. I am referring to the ludicrous case where two American teenagers sued a major fast food company for making them fat. Corporations are only supplying a demand. We are charged with promoting that supply. Sure, the food is not healthy, but there is a demand for it and a profit to be made from it so we’re there. It is consumer-controlled. If they don’t like it, they don’t have to eat it. In fact, by not eating it, they are twisting the arm of the fast food corporations into altering their menus.
I believe the problem is rooted more in the average household than it is on my desk at work.
I was reading a piece titled ‘How Marketers Target Kids’ recently where the wayward writer stated that some M-Rated video games and R-rated movies are marketed covertly to children as young as four. So what? Even if there are four-year-olds with a hundred dollars to blow (I was in my twenties when I saw that kind of money!) ratings restrictions in place prohibit someone at this age from making this kind of purchase. Logically then, the only way a four-year-old would be able to obtain an item of this nature would be if their parents, or some other significant adult, bought it for them. Thus, the issue we should be concerning ourselves with is the parenting, or lack thereof, in Australian households.
Guilt-ridden parents, ashamed of the time they’ve neglected to spend with their children, choose to purchase the quick-fix toy and satisfy their child’s pestering. This ‘pester-power’ phenomenon, which consumer advocates get so enthusiastic about, can be extinguished easily with solid boundaries and a strong ‘No’. If I dared pester my parents as a youngster all I received was a slap behind the ears! This is not the advertisers’ doing. This is the product of a job-obsessed, time-deprived society. Funnily enough, parents today do have some input in how their household operates.
As well as a plethora of products on the market, adults and children share large disposable incomes. By providing choice to the public we are helping them wade through the product swamp so that they might find exactly what they’re looking for. The service we offer helps parents choose which dentist to visit to get braces for their children; provides health information so kids can make educated decisions in the canteen; highlights the safety features in select family cars; promotes awareness on the topical issues in our society be it drugs, alcohol, speeding et cetera. And who finds the best deal on family packages to Disney Land?
To blame advertisers for lax parenting is inexcusable. We take our responsibilities quite seriously; perhaps it’s time some parents did the same. Self-regulation has worked and will continue to work well into the future. The implementation of these laws will be like the guilty parents purchasing the toy for their whingeing children: a band-aid on a gaping wound; the parties involved satisfied for a short amount of time whilst the main problem remains unresolved. We have been singled out again as the scapegoats for the problems of society except this time the ramifications will have a direct impact on our livelihoods. The dreamy idealist might claim love is what makes the world go round but we realists know it’s all about money. Keep your dystopic views to yourselves for a change and let us do our jobs.
You need to log in to urbis or create an urbis account to review this writing.
Reviews
Sort Reviews by Newest | Oldest | Highest Quality | Lowest Quality | Newest Comments |
blimprue reviewed Version 1 -
Read 100%% of the Item
Realize, I can only make realistic comments about what an American executive might say (or his/her spokesperson); this is very close to what I would anticipate: moral self-righteousness, an in-depth analysis of the dangers to capitalism, and always the idea that advertising ultimately has no part to play in consumer choice; always flattering the autonomy of the consumer…
One thing: if anything, executives here might even be stronger in terms of what they would call the “nanny” state; how it is overwhelming absolutely every facet of human existence from raising a child to picking a consumer product, and how
the “Liberals” will not be satisfied until every independent thought is under the lock and key of the regulators!(shrill overstatement is de rigeur here).
I know the Aussies just elected a Labour government that is going to sign the Kyoto protocol: I can’t see that happening here for awhile! Overall, this flowed very well and was fairly believable…
(The paragraph about “conditioning a healthy work force” is an excellent example
of laudable motives given a sinister spin…)
- add/view comments (0)
itacaregaucho reviewed Version 1 -
Read 100%% of the Item
This 192 word review has not been unlocked.
mscloudpetals reviewed Version 1 -
Read 100%% of the Item
I found your impersonation of a middle aged advertiser humorous and I can’t help wondering if you make fun of us middle aged people up on our soap boxes on a regular basis. Which is only fair since I have heard people in my age group make fun of teenagers too. (OF COURSE I WOULD NEVER DOOOOOO THAT) It is well written attempt to pass the societal buck in my book and I enjoyed it alot.
regmusty reviewed Version 1 -
Read 100%% of the Item
I dont know what you are trying to do but you are one hell of a letter writer.If you had some good ideas and wanted to write books i’m sure that the transition would be painless,so i do hope you pursue some other form as i would be eager to see it.Keep it up.
Catastrophe reviewed Version 1 -
Read 100%% of the Item
Very well-written. I think that you did establish and defend your position as per the instructions. The persona was a little weak, as there were no personal references to indicate that it was a middle-aged ad exec.
The only thing I would liked to have seen was specific examples, backed up by research or some other evidence, rather than ‘I think’ or ‘I believe’ statements.
Other than that, I’d say you nailed it. Good job.
Sean_Allen reviewed Version 1 -
Read 100%% of the Item
I think that as far as developing and sustaining an argument, the paper does a fairly good job. I’d argue that it gets a little heavy-handed at times, however, especially near the end. An argument doesn’t imply that it is necessary to get upset (or at least sound that way). Sentences like “Keep your dystopic views to yourselves for a change and let us do our jobs,” and the one that starts “These laws are being pushed by the self-righteous in our community…” (I was going to post the whole thing, but it was WAY too long, and would have ended up costing you more credits to just read your own writing) do little to convince me about how right you are, but rather of how vindictive you can be about this topic.
Additionally, I don’t totally agree with your point of view. One of the important tasks of a debater is to anticipate the opposition’s rebuttal, and to quash it before they have a chance to present it. However, instead of presenting the opposition as a side that could have reasonable views, you ridiculed them as self-righteous fascists. Not the best debate ploy. What if they came up with an argument concerning the fact that Australia is NOT a purely capitalist nation, and that in fact no nation has been purely capitalist since the USA in the 19th century for the fact that purely capital economies force the exploitation of people. Economies have been regulated on several different counts. This doesn’t have to be different. After all, why is there a minimum wage, or paid overtime? It’s because the relationship between worker and hirer isn’t that of master and pet (or slave, or robot). It is a relationship between two human beings, both of which have rights. Similarly, advertising is a tool that builds a relationship between a vendor and a consumer. Both of them have rights. In the case of children, who are particularly susceptible to external stimuli, their rights include the opportunity to be safeguarded against stimuli that is negative for their well-being. Being incapable of defending themselves, the weight of protecting its citizens falls upon society. And the laws that society creates.
kelliott reviewed Version 1 -
Read 100%% of the Item
This is a well thought out and researched paper, I am assuming you received an excellent grade on it. It also is a piece that touches, un apologetically the real issues that such a law are trying to abate or cover-up. I like the way you allow the reader to see the outcome of such laws would not change the way parents raise, or don’t really raise their children, they let society do it for them.
Good article!
Showing 1 - 7 of 7
Review item
Add to favesCreator
Relevant Links
Item Stats
GENERAL
7 Reviews 4 Comments
Version 1
Latest Activity: about 1 year ago
REVIEW QUEUE
Appeared in Queue: 380 Times
Skipped: 5 Times
Ratings & Rankings
