Kids represent an important demographic to marketers because they have their own purchasing power, they influence their parents' buying decisions.
Today's kids have more autonomy and decision-making power within the family than in previous generations, so it follows that kids are vocal about what they want their parents to buy.
Kids are treated as targets they represent a large group of consumers and at the moment. They deserve to be protected but what are the limits? who can set them? I believe there should be some sort of control among advertisers. The rules should be clear and equal to every single advertiser.
Ads in schools traspass the limits, I think that kids can be influenced by brands but schools should get ads that are related to what they are there for that is to educate. So there should be a public interest above money making targets. Kids should come out first no matter what. Kids should be seen as future workers and not as future consumers. They need things to use everyday but they dont need to buy clothes shoes videogames every week. If parents are not there to take care of the decisions that they make every day as consumers then the government should protect them. Kids can be influenced by ads and that can cause an effect on the food they eat, the lifestyle that they have and even on the way they behave. I would encourage parents to do something about it.
The risk is everywhere and the difference between my generation and the kids that were raised using a computer is internet.
The Internet is an extremely desirable medium for marketers wanting to target children: It's part of youth culture. This generation of young people is growing up with the Internet as a daily and routine part of their lives. Parents generally do not understand the extent to which kids are being marketed to online. Kids are often online alone, without parental supervision. Unlike broadcasting media, which have codes regarding advertising to kids, the Internet is unregulated.
The influence not only occurs with food we can also see it on clothing. Little girls are treated as women they are approached as such. Girls are encouraged to grow up as fast as possible the older they think they are the better consummers they will be.
Local governments should get involved in these kind of actions. I believe the Federal Government needs more money on sales tax and therefore they believe that the economic effect will cause some sort of damage compared to the risk that kids go through with this marketing techniques .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PC9Dl1aC9o
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Monday, November 9, 2009
Limit video games
Evrything in excess is not good for our minds. Video games have been somehow linked to violence. If we think about video games they should play a role as a form of entertainment but for some kids it means a complete training.
there are a lot of recomendations to parents one example is the one given by
the American Academy of Pediatrics' recommendation that parents limit screen time to no more than two hours per day includes television, videos/DVDs, and video games. If your child currently plays several hours of video games each day, either through a video game console or handheld device, they suggest that you to put a plan in place to limit video games at home and replace that time with other activities. For example:
and parents should allow your child to play for a set number of minutes per day. For example, you might decide that twenty minutes per day is sufficient.
Another alternative is to set two days out of the week as "video game" days. You might choose one weekend day and one weekday and find that the numbers, over the course of the week, even out.
Bring handheld video games to social events only on special occasions. If the device accompanies every trip to a friend's house and each errand you run during the week, it's likely that your child is racking up quite a few hours of playing time.
When your children's friends gather at your house, limit the amount of time they play video games. After twenty-thirty minutes of taking turns playing, suggest that the children move on to something else.
Don't forget to include computer games when you're thinking about how much time your child spends on video games. Even the best educational games shouldn't be played continuously.
I believe that the role of parents are significant but I also think that the governments local ones should get involved with this situation and work on some sort of programme to control the amount of hours that kids spend playing.
Ourdoor activies help social interaction that is something that many kids that were part in violent acts throught the US presented as a characteristic.
In Argentina there hadnt been situations as the ones in US highscools that involved shootings and minors using guns. A recent case shocked a small town a kid who loved video games had to pass the limit of shooting virtual characters he needed to go beyond that and decided to take his dads gun and kill classmates in school.
small towns can be boring but teachers and parents need to work on limits and on understanding that it is not normal to spend 8 hours a day playing over an over a video game that involves violence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFCUSZ8sDMw
there are a lot of recomendations to parents one example is the one given by
the American Academy of Pediatrics' recommendation that parents limit screen time to no more than two hours per day includes television, videos/DVDs, and video games. If your child currently plays several hours of video games each day, either through a video game console or handheld device, they suggest that you to put a plan in place to limit video games at home and replace that time with other activities. For example:
and parents should allow your child to play for a set number of minutes per day. For example, you might decide that twenty minutes per day is sufficient.
Another alternative is to set two days out of the week as "video game" days. You might choose one weekend day and one weekday and find that the numbers, over the course of the week, even out.
Bring handheld video games to social events only on special occasions. If the device accompanies every trip to a friend's house and each errand you run during the week, it's likely that your child is racking up quite a few hours of playing time.
When your children's friends gather at your house, limit the amount of time they play video games. After twenty-thirty minutes of taking turns playing, suggest that the children move on to something else.
Don't forget to include computer games when you're thinking about how much time your child spends on video games. Even the best educational games shouldn't be played continuously.
I believe that the role of parents are significant but I also think that the governments local ones should get involved with this situation and work on some sort of programme to control the amount of hours that kids spend playing.
Ourdoor activies help social interaction that is something that many kids that were part in violent acts throught the US presented as a characteristic.
In Argentina there hadnt been situations as the ones in US highscools that involved shootings and minors using guns. A recent case shocked a small town a kid who loved video games had to pass the limit of shooting virtual characters he needed to go beyond that and decided to take his dads gun and kill classmates in school.
small towns can be boring but teachers and parents need to work on limits and on understanding that it is not normal to spend 8 hours a day playing over an over a video game that involves violence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFCUSZ8sDMw
Monday, November 2, 2009
the News
Official sources a lot of times are government institutions or agencies. When I watched CNN interview on Pakistan an Afghanistans situation I noticed that campbell brown's show on CNN combines the opinion of 4 people in different cities to talk and discuss some topic. This opportunity it was the war and the decision that President Obama nees to make, whether to commit or not thousands or US soldiers or not.
The shows presents the journalist as NO BIAS NO BULL that gives us viewers who know nothing about her some sense of respect but when we start watching we realize that objective news we realize that her show is not unbiased. Taliban fighters on US payroll for switching sides. We can even read the sources and realize that there is a paraghrah written and it doesnt even have the source or the journalists name it only says CNN. The paraghraph states "some experts on the region believeUS program to pay Taliban Taliban Fighters to quit the organization is buying temporary LOYALTY. She is being biased. She suggests that the US government will buy some people's loyalty. It never says who
Michael ware, Peter Burgain and a Michael C Senior editor are her guests on the shows. She interviews the three of them and try to show diversity but she is not reporting she is forming an opinion.
I felt that The news is being reported from a democratic point of view from a person that focuses of important issues that are priorities in the country to spend money on.
She focuses on the decisions that need to be made by the government with the money in stake. It is a delicate situation that three people are talking about.
The story is not out of content because the situation is realistic and a huge issue at the moment.
The most important message with the story is that there is no one solution and not a fast one and that there are other issues to consider that cause a direct effect on war in Irak.
The reporter quotes Hillary Clinton and she tries to ask questions to all her guests and be independnet as possible.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/10/30/taliban.obama/index.html
The shows presents the journalist as NO BIAS NO BULL that gives us viewers who know nothing about her some sense of respect but when we start watching we realize that objective news we realize that her show is not unbiased. Taliban fighters on US payroll for switching sides. We can even read the sources and realize that there is a paraghrah written and it doesnt even have the source or the journalists name it only says CNN. The paraghraph states "some experts on the region believeUS program to pay Taliban Taliban Fighters to quit the organization is buying temporary LOYALTY. She is being biased. She suggests that the US government will buy some people's loyalty. It never says who
Michael ware, Peter Burgain and a Michael C Senior editor are her guests on the shows. She interviews the three of them and try to show diversity but she is not reporting she is forming an opinion.
I felt that The news is being reported from a democratic point of view from a person that focuses of important issues that are priorities in the country to spend money on.
She focuses on the decisions that need to be made by the government with the money in stake. It is a delicate situation that three people are talking about.
The story is not out of content because the situation is realistic and a huge issue at the moment.
The most important message with the story is that there is no one solution and not a fast one and that there are other issues to consider that cause a direct effect on war in Irak.
The reporter quotes Hillary Clinton and she tries to ask questions to all her guests and be independnet as possible.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/10/30/taliban.obama/index.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
