If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
It seems Beth’s last post on word of mouth being used for youth marketing has sparked off quite a debate both in the comments and other blogs. It has also flagged up quite a few issues, which I’ll deal with in turn:
Blog policy - our own opinions
First of all I’ve noticed that our house rules blog policy isn’t actually on the blog! Something, which I’ll sort out straight after this post. The reason that it’s important is that it says “All views expressed are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Wolfstar and other members of the team.”
Blog policy - drive by spam press releases
Secondly, we won’t tolerate rude and ignorant people who think it’s OK to paste a press release in the comments and can’t be bothered to take part in the conversation like a normal, polite person. So Lisa at Six Flags I’ve deleted your comment - the first time we’ve had to do so on the Wolfstar blog. You are welcome to come back and join in the debate.
Youth marketing
And now the crux of the argument, which is the around the ethics of youth marketing.
I did have some disquiet when I first read Beth’s post about how some brands in America have started to use word of mouth marketing to target influential teenagers - in this case cheerleaders.
However, you have to read the post carefully and see exactly what it is actually saying:
Samantha Skey at Alloy Media & Marketing, a youth marketing agency, says: “So advertisers are going into schools, forging new platforms for youth connection.”
Now personally, I don’t have a problem with that as children are exposed to thousands of brand messages and it can actually be beneficial that this happens in a controlled school environment and is done in a responsible and ethical way.
I agree with both Ourman and Sally in the comments that schools should be for learning and “kids protected from commercial pressures”. But that’s an argument to allow marketing in schools, in order to educate and protect children.
As my daughter grows up I want her to develop the critical skills to be able to understand marketing messages. It is my responsibility as a parent, and her teacher’s responsibilities when she starts school, to help her acquire those skills. I’m actually more relaxed about responsible marketing in schools than I am about some of the more irresponsible advertising you see for fast foods and soft drinks.
Secondly, most of the examples Beth cites aren’t actually in schools and are aimed at older students (16+).
My personal view as MD of Wolfstar is that we would be more than happy to engage in marketing in schools. But anything we did do would have to be totally ethical, honest and transparent. It would also be up for discussion by the whole team as to what we consider to be ethical. Just since Beth’s post we’ve had some lively discussions about what we would and wouldn’t be willing to promote.
Personally I’d have a problem with soft drinks, not so much because of a moral objection, but more because I don’t like the taste (far too sweet and sickly) and I can’t believe why anyone would pay good money for sugary water. That said, everyone else in the team appears to live off soft drinks.
I think the real point of the debate is probably more what the product is, rather than the principle of marketing in schools. I used to sit as a none-exec board member at a Development Education Centre. The DEC was contracted by charities such as Oxfam to produce resources for use in schools. Those resources were very explicit in pushing Oxfam’s development messages. But that’s OK, because it’s Oxfam.
If the principle of marketing in schools is OK for Oxfam, it’s OK for brands. But it must be done in an ethical and responsible way.
My final point is that this should be addressed in legislation and by regulators, in a similar way to Ofcom’s total ban on adverts for unhealthy food and drink around programmes for under-16s. Although I think a better idea than a ban would have been a levy on advertisers, so that for every pound spent on advertising junk food, then three pounds was spent on advertising healthy food.
Some good points Stuart - I share your feelings for spam press releases and have also joined the ethics debate of youth marketing at http://www.sebastianmysko.com.
Stuart
Some good points but I fundamentally disagree with the idea that allowing marketers into schools somehow “protects” kids by exposing them to messages and encouraging them to develop critical awareness.
There should be space in my daughter’s life where marketing messages simply aren’t an issue - where nobody is bombarding you with expensively designed images that are created with the sole intention of persuading kids that buying a particular branded object or experience somehow makes a person cooler, better or happier.
All this process does is say “cool” kids know this marketing message, and if you want to be cool, you should buy into it too. Kids are exposed to that in so many places that I’d argue they already have plenty of opportunities to learn about “critical awareness”. Perhaps they’d learn more simply by the absence of marketing messages?
Certainly, I’d pull my kid out of any school that did this in a heartbeat.
I’d add to that - I fundamentally disagree with your statement:
One more point:
You say:
“If the principle of marketing in schools is OK for Oxfam, it’s OK for brands.”
On what basis?
Oxfam’s aim in schools is two fold - firstly to educate and make young people grasp the concept of a wider, and in some cases, developing world. Secondly there is also the more subtle aim of trying to persuade schools to fundraise on their behalf.
Both are entirely laudable. I know, I used to work with schools, fundraising while with VSO overseas. It dovetailed well with students and helped them put their own lives in perspective set against the lives of others in less well off communities overseas.
How can you argue that if Oxfam does this it is also okay to push make up (which was the example given in the original article)? How exactly are the two comparable?
As Oxfam says on its own website:
“Oxfam Education offers a huge range of ideas, resources and support for developing the global dimension in the classroom and the whole school. All of the resources here support Education for Global Citizenship – education that helps pupils understand their world and make a positive difference in it.”
It’s not exactly the same as giving out freebies with the eventual aim of flogging Gatorade or eyeshadow is it?