Who’s messing with whose mind?

Abstract

Regulation of advertising to children is receiving increased attention. We need to distinguish areas where practice needs reform from criticism based on flawed models of how advertising works and from wrongly perceived changes in advertising practice. This paper summarises the criticisms by Nairn and Fine (IJA, 27(3), 2008). It then sets out what seems to be reliable (i.e. the common ground) before raising concerns with other assertions. The argument that children cannot cope with advertising because their rational faculties are not yet developed collapses as it turns out, as Nairn and Fine concede, that the same applies for any age group. Maybe more controls are needed for product placement and/or advertising masquerading as editorial, but neither of these are areas where the rights of, or responsibilities to, children differ from adults. In other words, Nairn and Fine confound their concern for children with their antipathy to certain forms of advertising to all age groups. Nairn and Fine may also be confusing changes in advertising theory with changes in advertising practice. After reviewing other areas of contention, this paper concurs with the final Nairn and Fine recommendation, namely that the advertising industry should review self-regulation in regard to advertising to children.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 14 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.