Power to the Parents?

The family has been identified as being instrumental in teaching children aspects of consumption,

"Advertising convinces both parents and children that commodities positively define the self."

such as price-quality relationships, learning to save money and comparison shopping. Historically, advertisements to children were directed through their mothers, as women became the key targets in the early stages of the modern consumer society due to their purchasing power in the family. Corporate advertising used the role of mother as a propaganda strategy to develop a culture of consumption with young children as the targets.

Children now crave an image -- popularity and belonging amongst their peers -- that becomes increasingly difficult for parents to challenge. Parent-child conflict over purchasing contributions adds significantly to familial strife.

Corporations have not only succeeded in convincing children of the need for specific objects of pleasure in the form of toys and food, they have done an equally convincing job with their parents. Advertising convinces both parents and children that commodities positively define the self.

Many parents  have also been deluded into thinking the new generation of children, who can manage computers and identify a mouse as a piece of computer hardware before they know a mouse is also an animal, are somehow smarter, more sophisticated and better informed. What is overlooked is exposure to corporate control and influence is still prominent.

A 2002 research study showed teachers perceive parents as being caught up in the consumer cycle of earning more and buying more as a result of less time together and inadequate

It relentlessly encourages the consumption of junk food, junk toys, violent/sexualized media, alcohol and cigarettes.

instruction of basic social skills and values. Teachers say parents feel compelled to indulge their children because they want to reward good behaviour, maintain love and approval, and simply satisfy their demands. Consequently, nurturing becomes an exchange of material goods, damaging the parent/child relationship at this most intimate level. 

Clearly, consumer culture has not been kind to parents.

It bombards children with $15 billion worth of advertising designed to increase children's ability to nag “better” and more often.  It relentlessly encourages the consumption of junk food, junk toys, violent/sexualized media, alcohol and cigarettes.  It portrays parents as just plain stupid.  When children internalize those messages and become obese, or hyperactive, or violent, who is to blame?  Whenever the issue of blame or responsibility arises for children, the standard corporate line is: it is the parent’s fault.  This is the corporate response regardless of product, issue, research, damage or legal outcome.

“We only offer products, people make choices”.  This is the responsibility sham.  In spite of proof of the influence of marketing and advertising on children’s choices and behaviour, regardless of a $300 billion fine to one industry alone (with more to follow), it is only the parents' responsibility?  Parents understand responsibility. Corporations targeting children have some difficulty with the concept.