Corporations Targetting Nations Students

"Have it your way", "The Joy of Pepsi", and "Just Do It"; all three slogans are trademarked by some of the largest corporations on the planet and soon, children may be finding these slogans, alongside a poster advertising the winter formal dance, in the halls of their schools. Why would schools allow such ads to be placed on the premises? In California alone, the 2008 state budget calls for a $4.8 billion dollar cut from educational funds according to the California Department of Education press release in March (California). In the same press release, it is speculated that upwards of twenty thousand school staff and faculty may be laid off due to lack of funding (California). Large corporations are hoping to take advantage of the financial crisis as well as the lucrative teen and pre-teen market by trading ad space in schools for financial assistance. Do the costs outweigh the benefits? Looking into some of the dangers presented by the types of advertisements, we will see the inevitability of major problems the ads will inflict on students. First, we must understand why and how advertisers are reaching children and teens.

An average teen will view over three thousand ads a day, according to Dr. Donal Shifrin in Pediatrics, presented to them in various forms. While some of these ads are not targeted at the teen demographic, many corporations are beginning to focus on this age group. A major reason for this is " ...to establish "brand-name preference" at as early an age as possible" (Shifrin). The concept of brand preference can be easily described by comparing two similar products: Coke and Pepsi. These two companies live or die by brand preference and my family is a perfect example of this. They were raised drinking Pepsi and now refuse to drink Coke or any product produced by Coca-Cola. If students can be branded, it will bring in multiple more dollars per consumer over their lifetime.

Another way advertisers reach students is by "... convinc[ing] the viewer that they have a problem that needs fixing, and then propos[ing] to offer the solution, which just happens to be the product they are selling" (Carney). One such ad commonly seen on television is promoting an acne medication called ProActive. ProActive uses teen testimonials about how they used to have terrible skin, purchased the product, and now have clear skin, while implying they are more popular because of the clearer skin. This type of advertising preys upon the students self-esteem, or lack thereof. These forms of advertising are more frequently showing up in schools, but why?

With the public school systems in as bad shape as they are in now due to lack of financial funding, it is no wonder that some districts are turning to large corporations for help. These corporations, such as matchmaker.com, will provide financial assistance, but the corporations are not in the business of giving away money. They demand advertising space, in the school's cafeteria, locker room, or on their website, in exchange for the funds. These funds are considered well spent with "teenagers account[ing] for more than $1 billion in e-commerce dollars, and the industry spend[ing] $21.6 million on Internet banner ads alone in 2002" (Shifrin). Some of these advertisements, according to Lynn Waddell, often seem harmless, but can end up linking to "...a variety of message boards, with topics that include bestiality, incest, and spouse swapping." The inappropriate linking may not be intentional, but in the 'spiderweb-like' internet, one child-appropriate ad may be linked to ten 'strands' that are questionable and are outside the schools' realm of influence.

While supporters of the advertising agreements claim that the online advertisements can be regulated and controlled, it is often not the case. With the internet as large and dynamic as it is today, all it takes is a simple change to the HTML code to link a banner ad to a completely different site. This change is often not controlled by the school, and in some cases, the advertisers do not even have control over the code. Waddell approaches the subject in the Christian Science Monitor by claiming that parents, teachers, and districts should lobby the government for stricter regulations regarding the content of online ads. In her article, she also makes note that "...some teachers say government restrictions may not be necessary. Like many adults, students are ignoring online banner ads" (Waddell). If only one child accesses pornography or inappropriate material, the school would (and should) be held responsible, and a relaxed view on regulating ads will not be enough to keep this material out of the students hands. Internet advertising is only one of the concerns and with child obesity rates skyrocketing, parents and school boards are quickly targeting corporations selling sugar rich junk food.

A researcher would be hard pressed to find a school that did not allow soft drinks in the cafeteria, candy filled vending machines, and even energy drinks allowed on campus. With the rapid rise of childhood obesity and early onset diabetes, the issue of targeting children with junk food ads has taken a lead with those in opposition. The major advertisers in the junk food industry are focusing their efforts on teens and pushing hard to be allowed in schools because the current popular ideas regarding junk food is rapidly changing to promote healthy eating. While these corporations provide much needed financial assistance to under funded schools, the risks that their products are subjecting on their consumers weigh in heavily in a school districts' decision to ban/allow advertising in schools.

According to Gary Ruskin in Junk Food Nation, the Department of Agriculture has been tasked (June 2005) with keeping "foods of minimum nutritional value" out of schools at lunch times, but said they were not aware and did not care if the schools were following these rules. School districts need to establish more defined rules for allowing corporations to advertise or supply products to sell at schools. One suggestion that is commonly posed is removing all sugary drinks from schools, providing only water, juices, and milk products. Some good results have come from this, because in May, 2006, the nation's largest beverage distributors agreed to halt nearly all sales of sodas to public schools (Shifrin). This, however, is not enough; there are still over 200 school districts nationwide have signed exclusive contracts with soft drink companies" (Shifrin). Another issue is the presence of television style ads on a program called Channel One, a morning news program aimed at middle and high schoolers. "An informal survey of Channel One advertisers from a few years ago found that 27 percent of the ads were for junk food" (Facts). Food and drink are not the only products threatening the nations youth, other more subtle products are finding a foothold in the teen world.

Society is pressing teens to mature much earlier in life as each year passes. Drugs, sex, and alcohol are becoming prevalent in middle schools and running rampant in high schools across the country and around the world. Supporters of advertising in schools would claim this is the natural progression of our world today, but research is proving otherwise. A major tactic of advertisers is to "...hone in on themes and attitudes that parents might find inappropriate or offensive, like sex or alcohol and drug use, further escalating the "coolness factor" of the product" (Carney). Ads for clothing companies such as Ambercrombie & Fitch often portray more skin than clothing on their dangerously thin women and hairless muscular men. These images get imprinted in students minds as the ultimate physique. If their body type does not fit that category, the overweight student has no chance at "being cool". Schools should have no business in lowering their students' self-esteem, rather they should facilitate the opposite, and should not allow companies in their schools that use this type of material. Popular social networking websites like myspace.com or facebook are also causing problems in schools with computer labs. Students will access these seemingly innocent websites where demeaning and inappropriate ads litter the pages and cause emotional harm, sometimes permanent, to the students. These sites are not even paying for the advertising the students are viewing. The problem with advertising is not exclusive to the United States, but its' reaches are worldwide.

In Germany, schools are having financial problems similar to California, and schools are being allowed to make deals with advertisers. In Omar Sacribey's article for the Christian Science Monitor, a group of students were asked about the advertising in schools and responded, "there are ads everywhere. So why not raise money for the school?" Students, and even adults, often get so used to advertisements they are ignorant of their dangers. In the same article, Sacribey goes on to describe that schools are allowing ads because much of their "non-crucial" curriculum, such as music and art, are being cut due to budget issues. The money raised from the advertising is used to finance schools' needs that may not be covered in their state or federal funding. Schools are "...sell[ing] naming rights to their gyms to the highest bidder" (Carney) and selling "...an 11-inch-wide strip of advertising above the windows inside school buses...school districts get about $2,100 per month per bus" (Remson) to get by. Schools have plenty of space to advertise, but how can they control what gets advertised and who makes those decisions?

Should the decision of what an appropriate ad is be left to individual school districts, states, or even national levels? If these ads were to be regulated, it should be a tiered rule system. The national standards should be broad, no tobacco or alcohol for example, and the state a little more defined based on each states' laws. After that, individual school districts should have the veto power over any ad that a corporation wishes to place in the school. This would be a good beginning, but something else should also be implemented to protect the schools. The corporation should not be allowed to revoke a deal because the school declined the ad. If the advertisement is not approved, the corporation should recreate the ad based on the reason the old one was declined. This will keep the corporations from holding the schools in financial limbo by threatening to pull out of the deal if they don't post their ad. All of this regulation will cost tax payer money and extra time that could be better spent on more important subjects like finding additional school funding, and possibly cause harm to the students.

Having presented numerous reasons why and how advertisements inside of schools can and are causing harm to students, it is up to the current voting public to get involved. Only the voters can take it up with their congressman or women, bring it up at school board meetings, and educate their children on the problems with advertising. As a responsible parent, one should talk to their children about the lies presented in ads, why they do not represent reality, and how to manage the urges to purchase unneeded items. Teachers need to discuss ads and their meanings in their classes, debunking myths that many can create and encourage solid self-esteem and nutrition. Finally, consumers need to stand up for the nations students and demand the corporations create less harmful ads or face customer losses. Stand up for the students; the nations children are not for sale.

Works Cited

California Department of Education. State Superintendent of Public Instruction. "State Schools Chief Jack O'Connell, Teachers, Support Staff, Administrators Announce More Than 20,000 Teachers and Support Staff Getting Layoff Notices Due to Budget Crisis." Press release. 14 Mar. 2008. 3 Aug. 2008 .

Carney, Susan. "Advertising To Teens Advertising To Teens: Why and How Marketers Target Kids." Suite101.com: The Genuine Article. Literally. 23 Feb. 2007. 3 Aug. 2008 .

"Facts About Marketing To Children." New American Dream. 3 Aug. 2008 .

Remson, Adam. "School Buses Latest Victim of Ad Creep." BrandWeek. 49.3 (2008). EbscoHOST. U. of La Verne Lib., La Verne. 29 June 2008

Ruskin, Gary, and Juliet Schor. "Junk Food Nation: Who's to Blame for Childhood Obesity?" The Nation. 11 Aug. 2005. 5 Aug. 2008 .

Sacribey, Omar. "To Pay Bills, Schools in Europe Allow Ads." Christian Science Monitor 91 (1999).

Shifrin M.D., Donald, et al. "Children, Adolescents, and Advertising." Pediatrics 118 (2006): 2563-569.

Waddell, Lynn. "Flap Erupts of Ads on School Websites." Christian Science Monitor 93.110 (2001): 2. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. U. of La Verne Lib., La Verne. 7/2/2008 http://0-web.ebscohost.com>