TV product placement exploits the most vulnerable children

By Joe Cox / @CompassOffice

As is to be expected in the run up to the general election there have been numerous debates around Labour’s electoral strategy. The traditional media have crudely framed the debate as a choice between a core vote strategy or one aimed at the middle classes. The reality is that any party that wants to form a government needs a campaign that will appeal to a broad section of the electorate. This need not be as difficult as it may first appear – let’s take one example, television product placement.

Compass launched the campaign to end the commercialisation of childhood in 2006 because we were concerned that marketers were inventing ever more ingenious ways of infiltrating children’s worlds, subverting parents and families and exploiting children’s emotional vulnerabilities in the name of profit. Our report argued that children were struggling to keep up, resulting in increasing rates of stress, depression and low self esteem. Rampant marketing was also contributing to all time high levels of obesity and related health problems in children.

This campaign – like the calls for tougher action around excessive pay – has support from the majority across socio-economic groups.

The joint DCMS & DCSF report into the impact of the Commercial World and Children’s Wellbeing found that:

“There is some evidence that the associations between the commercial world and negative aspects of wellbeing – in respect of ‘pester power’, peer pressure, and mental and physical health – are stronger among less wealthy families”.

So we have a duty to the most vulnerable children to halt excessive commercialisation.

Yet this issue, like scores of others, cuts across class boundaries. Late last year the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Ben Bradshaw announced that he would look at allowing TV Product Placement for the first time. The DCMS then held a consultation which closed on January 8th 2010, and ministers faced a backlash. Compass brought together a coalition of those opposed to the decision which included representatives of organisations working in the children and parenting fields, teachers and members of the wider children’s workforce, health professionals, campaigners, academics and politicians to make their feelings known.

A group of leading health professionals called on the government not to allow TV product placement to go ahead and wrote a letter that stated:

“We hope that the government will step back from these potentially damaging proposals and realise that the long-term health of the nation is of more importance than the short-term financial health of a small number of commercial broadcasters.”

Compass supporters that have emailed the department have had a response stating that:

“Were the UK to retain the status quo of prohibiting product placement on television, our programme and film makers would be at a serious competitive disadvantage with their foreign competitors.”

This gets to the nub of the issue – economic efficiency and social justice do not always go together. Ben Bradshaw has an important choice to make.

Supporters of the campaign should go to visit the Compass website for further information.

Our related event ‘Not in front of the kids: does product placement help or harm our children?’ will take place in Parliament at 6PM on Wednesday 24 February 2010. Speakers include David Cairns MP; Sue Palmer, author, Toxic Childhood; John McVay, PACT; Neal Lawson, chair, Compass; Jackie Ashley, The Guardian (chair). To register email Gavin.

Related posts:

1. Proposal #12: Ban advertising of junk food to children
2. The Welfare Reform Bill will wreak havoc for some of the most vulnerable people
3. We can take 50,000 additional children out of poverty this week with an extension of free school meals
4. How much are our children worth?
5. Ed Balls’ priority must be our children