Companies that market socially questionable products need to absolutely be aware of the possible ripple effects that could potentially occur. I’ll start with the Sketchers Shape-Ups, a product that claims to tone and shape your body while you walk, The company stated that the sizes start at two, around the age of a seven-year-old girl. So what could potentially happen if our seven-year-old children are trying to look like Kim Kardashian? Ignoring the fact that I would do whatever it took to keep Kim Kardashian away from my children; there are a slew of damaging side effects that could happen (are happening?) to children at such a young age.
Its not a secret that our culture is becoming more obsessive with body image, but there needs to be an age where children do not have to worry about their personal appearance in typical social settings, school being the big one. Eating disorders, depression, and social ostracization were common when I was in high school, but marketing products that put an unneeded emphasis on “looking good” can potentially lower the age the children will have issues with their self-esteem.
I have the same problem with make-up marketed to young girls. A little blush or mascara may seem harmless, but emulating what one sees in the media can be a slippery slope. If a young girl buys a product because she wants to look like Paris Hilton, she will likely have no idea of the reasons why she should have chosen a role model with a better reputation (morals, integrity, etc.). And if you have a child that looks up to someone like Paris Hilton, wanting to look like her will be the least of your worries.
We live in very image conscious society, and I am not a prude by any means, but the concept of body image is not something that should be marketed to kids. If something like this catches on, the child of the one parent who will not let her daughter look promiscuous is the one child who suffers. I understand that some parents want their children to fit in and be popular, but if it comes at the expense of someone else being unpopular, is it worth it?
Getting back to marketing, many believe that all organizations have a corporate social responsibility (CSR) to uphold ethical standards in their conduct. The Sketchers case shows the best visible violation of this, proved by the $40 million lawsuit for deceptive advertising, but there are a plethora of other examples. Junk food and sugary snacks such as cereal commonly target the younger population, and with the advent of the Internet, these companies have found a loophole in parental supervision.
Many companies, particularly overseas, are not permitted to advertise certain products to children that have high amounts of fat and sugar. In a smart, but ethically grey move, many of these companies have created websites promoting their unhealthy products in an effort to circumvent advertising restrictions. These companies, such as Nestle and Cadbury have also circumvented adult supervision, and the parents may have no idea that their children are being coerced into supporting these products. Is it good marketing? Yes. Is it good for society? Not so much.
In short, no organization should be able to stand behind a product that promotes a double standard (sexism), regarding the Sketchers and make-up examples. Doing so puts too much pressure on the child and influences too many variables in what should be a carefully controlled environment for children of young ages. There are plenty of high schoolers to market products to, when kids have a better idea of why they are making their purchasing decisions. And ethical decisions can make an organization profitable, so preying on the young is never ethical in my book.
austindecent 