Advertising to children: ide esai IELTS

Many parents and campaigners believe that advertisements directed at children should be prohibited because they encourage needless spending. I agree with this view to a considerable extent, particularly regarding young children.

The strongest argument for a ban is that children are not yet able to understand persuasion. A seven-year-old cannot easily tell the difference between an entertaining cartoon and a commercial designed to sell a toy, and so accepts whatever the advert claims. Companies exploit this by using bright colours, famous characters and catchy songs. As a result, children repeatedly demand products and parents feel pressured to give in, even when money is short. Another concern is health. A large proportion of the products advertised during children's programmes are sweets, fizzy drinks and fast food, which contribute to obesity. Sweden and Norway already restrict child-directed marketing for these reasons.

Those who disagree with a total ban make some fair points. They say that parents are the ones who make purchases and should be able to say no, and that children must eventually learn to assess advertising for themselves. Moreover, commercials fund many children's channels, so removing them could reduce the amount of quality programming available.

Nevertheless, I do not find these arguments convincing for the youngest age group. Saying no to a persistent child every day is exhausting, and media education cannot be effective before a certain age. Broadcasters can find other ways to finance programmes, such as public funding or sponsorship that does not feature products.

In conclusion, I believe advertising aimed at young children should be banned, with lighter rules for teenagers, who are better able to think critically about what they see.