Harrison’s article “Schools
are a marketer’s dream venue” emphasizes the costs of advertising in schools
with a particular emphasis on the long term behavioural impact of the
sponsorships by the fast food on children and adolescents. The you tube video
is the first of a series of advertisements by McDonald’s “nutrition commitment
to promote nutrition and/or active lifestyle message in 100% of its national
communication to kids,” (McDonalds, 2012) where there is a problem with the pet
goat at home eating everything in sight and this problem is solved by taking
the goat to McDonalds where it gets a “better diet” of apple slices and
chocolate milk and becomes as “strong as an ox.”
Although, children
and schools are benefitting from extra funding in that they are able to afford
new technologies and provide programs fro students, companies are taking
advantage of them. Through school sponsorships and funding, companies are able
to advertise and have access to ALL the vulnerable children and
adolescents. It is through such marketing strategies that they are able to
expose their products to every child, resulting in increased product popularity
and sales.
“One thing they now
is that the more we are exposed to a particular ad, or product, or brand, the
more we are likely to believe it is a good product or brand.”(Harrison, 2009)
Similarly Kenway and Bullen state, “Advertising is not only a key element of a
market culture, it is also pivotal to the growth of such cultures and, at the
same time, it establishes its own momentum.” Kenway, Bullen and Harrison suggest
that schools are caught in a continuous cycle, where the more funding the
school receives, the more they become absorbed in the market culture, the more
they advertise, the more expose their products and ultimately the more the
undesirable product becomes desirable.
McDonalds has long
been identified as an unhealthy fast food restaurant. In the new ad, it
suggests that the food at home is no good and the place to go for a “better
diet,” and to be “as strong as an ox.” With the new US McDonald’s campaign to
“improve nutritional choices,” parental control over the education of healthy
eating to their children is compromised. As adults, it is understood that the
phrase “Improve[d] nutritional choices” means the minority of their menu that
is considered healthy and nutritional is now more nutrition than it was before,
which leads to the question how can you make something that was nutritional to
begin with more nutritional???... Unless it wasn’t nutritional to begin with…
However the ad
targeted at children creates the “dreamscape”(Kenway & Bullman, 2009:Pp.128)
suggests that food from home is not good for you, which is why McDonald’s is
the place to go for good food. This campaign recreates a whole new identity for
McDonald’s as it suggests that McDonald’s is healthy, and mummy and daddy’s
excuse that McDonald’s is not good for you is rendered mute. How are parents to
teach their children the maintenance of a healthy and active lifestyle when
their children are being exposed to advertisements everyday that say otherwise?
References
Aboutmcdonalds.com
(2011). McDonald's® USA: Commitments to Offer Improved Nutrition
Choices :: AboutMcDonalds.com. [online] Available at:
http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/newsroom/electronic_press_kits/mcdonalds_usa_commitments_to_offer_improved_nutrition_choices.html
[Accessed: 3 Sep 2012].
Harrison,
P. (2009). Schools are a marketer's dream venue. The Sydney Morning
Herald, [online] 22 October. Available at:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/schools-are-a-marketers-dream-venue-20091021-h8xj.html
[Accessed: 03 Sep 2012].
Kenway,
J. & Bullen, (2001). Consuming
children: Education-Entertainment-Advertising. Buckingham: Open University
Press. Chapter 5: Designer schools, packaged students.
McDonalds
(2012). McDonald's: Champions of Happy, Goat. [video online]
Available at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qtws5vqhxw&feature=related&noredirect=1
[Accessed: 03 Sep 2012].
Advertising in schools has become a controversial matter in the past few years, indeed. One of my blogs revolves around the issue of advertising and marketisation of schools. A question that I had to mull over is whether or not the cons outweigh the pros? After all, in exchange of advertising, corporate sponsorship involves companies providing funds, products, equipment and/or services for the selected school. Not to mention that both sides of our government are encouraging Australian businesses to "participate in our education system" (Ricci, 2009). You mentioned the McDonald's ad which you negates parental control and authority over their children and their eating habits. It will be increasingly difficult for parents to shape their children's eating habits and lifestyle if at school they are bombarded with manipulative advertising. McDonald's maths program was also criticised in influencing student's consumer choice.
ReplyDeleteMy main concern with advertising is how far will it go? Will the placement of the golden arches in all classrooms suddenly become a requirement? Will students have the logo embroidered in their uniform? Company’s main interest is not the welfare of children after all- they are concerned about profit and influence. Opponents of advertising claim that it introduces young, impressionable students to brands, "generate product loyalty and influence behaviour." (Ricci, 2009). Ricci (2009) warns that cash strapped schools will become dependent on corporate sponsorship and thus allow greater "brand" involvement. That said, if schools fail to embrace marketisation, advertising and corporate sponsorship, they will lag behind schools that do. This has left many schools between a rock and a hard place. In my opinion, this is all inevitable and indeed, some schools do need and benefit from corporate sponsorship. However, I propose that some sort of regulation and limitations are placed upon how much influence companies can have in the school environment.