Journal 2 Advertising and Marketing

After reading these two articles, both of which were supported by facts and statistics, my first  impression was the article by Robert Liodice made the best argument. The argument by Margo Wootan, in my opinion brought a lot of valid points, there is no doubt that childhood obesity is a problem. She makes points about calories being too high in children's diets, the key roles marketing has played in the last 20 years, and the need for marketers to act more responsibly in this issue. The main issue I had with her argument were the guidelines purposed by CSPI, I felt that the restrictions were way to controlling, almost "Orwellian." Also Liodice pointed out a few contradictions, one that stood out was how the CSPI guidelines stated that the "parents bear the primary responsibility for feeding their children." But the proposed guidelines seem to ignore that statement. He also provided information on how  Nielson Media Research conducted a detailed study from 1993 to 2003 showing the number of food adds seen by children 12 years of age or younger have declined by 13%. Another point he makes is how the food and marketing industries have taken great steps in addressing the special concerns of children in relation to advertising, with the creation of the Children's Advertising Review Unit (CARU) This group is a self regulation arm of the Council of Better Business Bureaus. While I liked this argument better at first, I decided to reread both articles because the piece by Margo Wootan seemed to provide more information. After rereading the Liodice argument, I noticed that he has the title of CEO of the Association of National Advertisers. That had the "bias" bell ringing in my head, as apposed to Margo Wootan who is the Director of Nutrition Science for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit organization. There would be less of a bias on their part since they seem to provide studies for the public in a number of areas. The study by Nielson Media Research did show a 13% decrease in food ads shown to children 12 years or younger, but that doesn't show studies for children ages 13 to 17, which CSPI considers a child (anyone under the age of 18) For all we know there could have been an increase in ads for teenagers under the age of 18? Including my personal opinion that the regulation guidelines by CSPI are too extreme that doesn't mean they can't be rethought. I am a firm believer in the Constitution and especially the First Amendment but we do as a society bare at least some responsibility for what advertising can market to children. After reading these articles twice and also putting aside my personal beliefs on the First Amendment I felt that the best argument was presented by Margo Wootan. In terms of logic and analytical reasoning the Wootan article was stronger. (Now I could also go on as to say how I believe this a great opportunity for the free market to help with this problem but maybe I'll save that for my blog entry) : - )