Advertizing for children is how ethic?
rushed into life of inhabitants of the sixth part of the land the concepts, new to them, contacting initially only the world of the West with its notorious " Not so long ago; bourgeois “ values and other than the parties of public life occurring in member countries of a socialist camp features of absolute majority. Among them there was also an advertizing. It is not enough - Pomala got used to it, but fell in love nevertheless with the few.
In scientific subtleties of this phenomenon (as the fact that advertizing represents one of the effective and actively used by the western marketing specialists instruments of advance of goods in the market) were devoted only couple of percent which are most advanced however popular wisdom which carriers are representatives practically of any ethnic education, at once allowed to reveal that the declaration of good intentions from screens of TVs is not something identical to the valid service to good at all. Quality and consumer characteristics of goods in “ box “ and real life as many guessed, can (and even have to) to differ.
To count that to solve a plan “ kind dyad and aunts “ the child of preschool age to which has the luck to be born on a joint of the 20th and 21st centuries will be able, there will be not everyone. The majority safely realizes that it is possible only if the child - the child prodigy. On this soil there was a new phenomenon - advertizing for children. A phenomenon which is not so simple and not so indisputable at first sight. Synergetrics whether you know: advertizing - it is clear, children - such we know too, and here advertizing for children - it is not simple the same which is watched by adults, only made about beautiful toys and different delicacies.
The question of ethics arises by itself. “ from a threshold “ is evident, in - the first, the fact of the sophisticated and usually covered behind glossy covers and colourful wrappers deception which purpose does not need an excess mention. It is bad to deceive and what to deceive the child, using both and his situation? In - the second, the ethical aspect emerges when in response to the list of the claims addressed to the companies for which children`s audience - very gold-bearing segment of the market, the last direct the well-cared fingers sideways of actions of charitable character which, say, would not be if children did not pull the mothers for a sleeve every time when standing and day and night before them they see a subject of children`s expectations in shop or other trade institution.
However, god with it, with ethics. The most important on our guilty earth - health. And children`s health in civilized countries - one of the main priorities of a state policy. Though has to be that not only the developed countries.
Here the following attracts attention: about what only wonderful chemical elements it was not necessary to hear when the speech came about goods of an illegal origin (and attention are worthy not only foodstuff, but also toys which can be a source not of children`s danger to the growing organism)! Producers of goods for children know about a remorse (certainly understanding that they sell also to whom) no more, than the wolf preparing for appointment to a hare or a lamb. There are standards, there are standards of safety to which all have to follow. But it cannot serve as a guarantee that nobody will try to sell potentially dangerous and harmful product where - nibud and sometime.
It is necessary to tell about a part which is assigned in the conditions of shelling from the most various media points to parents of children who become heroes of the occasion, that is the next large-scale advertizing campaign of one of the multinational companies. It is necessary to bring up the child with a fair share of discretion, the Child cannot be deprived of the childhood, but also it is impossible to deprive him of spiritual food which is necessary for its development. The choice of funds for ways to it considerably becomes complicated in view of emergence of strong irritants for children`s mentality.
If to the child to refuse to buy what is bought by parents of the neighbour`s fellow and that every day he sees on the TV screen, then a certain negative in its relations with mother and the father can be created. If to follow the tastes the child, then, obviously, there is a risk to catch other illness when children become unscrupulous and not ready to potential refusal when declaring the next desire. The truth, as always, lies somewhere in the middle, but it is not always possible to find its exact location in each case, however nevertheless is vital.
We cannot but point that advertizing creates prerequisites for transition to the market and formation of the competitive environment among which numerous advantages of existence the wide offer of goods is, therefore - the bigger choice, and also improvement of quality of production presented at the market. Means from advertizing are used by TV companies including for support of the informative and developing TV programs. It serves as confirmation of the thesis according to which there`s no evil without good. However, in each situation the ratio of a harm and good always a miscellaneous - it should be considered.
There are pluses, there are minuses - from here, there is a choice. However, the choice doubtful and represented by unfair means. To grant the right to make the decision and to use collateral means with the purpose to predetermine the majority of such decisions in own favor - it gives very doubtful musty smell of hunting for money with impurity of such acquaintance in this context of cynicism. To entangle children in “ adult dismantling “ (to some justice of application of zakavychenny expression to everything concerning the central idea of human life - fight for resources in a broad sense of this word), - in my opinion, it it was time to leave behind a board of the ship carrying us in the future under sails of ideas of democracy, humanity and Ten bible precepts long ago.
The child is not guilty of anything. Or perhaps IT is guilty what wants to be eaten with IT?.