While marketing to youth may be a touchy situation ( – what underlying message is promoted? – what method of contact is utilized? – what products do you advertise? – are you going to begin promoting tampons to eight year old girls, or condoms to 10 year old boys? – what personal data is floating around for financial promotions, making even youth a target for identity theft?), it is a lucrative campaign. It is true that many key decisions are made and lessons learned early in life. I think on the “got milk?” campaign that came out during my youth – and it stuck!

Another key example that I have been directly involved in, is Chick-fil-A’s goal to catch kids young, believing that when you get a child to be a CFA fan, you’ve got a fan for life! And this is accomplished through MANY ways: Chick-fil-A “cow” appearances, Cow Appreciation Day, school nights and fundraisers, Core Essentials – Character Matters, and the list goes on! And one need only be across the room to hear the squeals of delight of 4- or 6-year olds when The Cow emerges from the kitchen – and Chick-fil-A has a “fan for life”

Great points. To me, that’s what makes Responsible Marketing so interesting. It’s almost impossible to create a one-size-fits-all rule here. For some products SHOULD be marketed to children, others are definitely questionable. The challenge is, who decides?

Thank you for your thoughtful posts!

- – -

Lorena,

Thank you for your kind comments and for taking the time to point out the areas that needed attention. I corrected both areas.

And as a parent of a five-year-old boy and 3 2/3-year-old girl, I can totally relate to your comments.

Happy marketing!

I am an avid reader of your blogs. I enjoy them very much, but I could not help noticing the errors in today’s post. Anyway, it is all good. That means people are really paying attention, isn’t it? So… keep the posts coming

So… “Proctor and Gamble” should be mentioned by their real name. Also, I am not sure how 100 samples are split between 5,000 football teams. I know, the info comes from the original article, but I still do not understand.

Other than that, I think responsible parents (!) need to filter the amount of advertising their children are exposed to. As a parent, I would simply not allow an 8 y.o to have access to deodorant or shaving cream… not to mention hairspray or makeover. Period. There is a time for everything and that time is not now. As a marketer, at the end of the day, I want my conscience to be clean. Those kids cannot make informed decisions. And no, I am not an extremely strict parent. I just want my kid to enjoy each age, not skip to adulthood.

In my opinion, it is irresponsible and predatory, but it does not have to be like that. The society does not need to shape your child; that is a parent’s job.

Here’s a thought: If 60 percent of 15-17 year-olds remain loyal to their bank and recommend it to friends, maybe banks should target high-schoolers and first-time jobbers. Or tweens to get them used to the idea of saving money instead of simply spending it. Credit card companies market to high school grads rather tenaciously. Why not banks and other financial services?

If banks would market to tweens and teens in the same manner as Cover Girl and Old Spice do, would that be considered to be responsible marketing?

Tweens and teens are consumers of goods and services just as the rest of us. If a company targets that age group, is that in itself irresponsible marketing? Or does what is marketed make it irresponsible?