I feel like this article failed to make the point clear of what the big issue is here. I mean I understand that kids should be more aware of when they are being coerced by advertisers, but nothing in this article said that having kids playing these games made them want the product more. And some of these games can be educational, like practicing math or vocabulary or spatial reasoning, which is not to say that makes it all right. It just doesn’t seem like a pivotal issue to me, but I also feel that the key point in this was not made.
This article is accurate because I am not a “child” and I barely notice ads. I think as a society, we’re so bombarded with ads that we have become jaded. I will mute my computer when a online comes up and I will change the channel on t.v. So I don’t think this study is only applicable to children…adults don’t really notice either.
I agree with Leah. The article seems to be emphasizing the problem that these kids are being branded without knowing their own exposure to advertising. It folds back on itself in that the findings suggest that the age demographic of these kids aren’t even aware of the cereal sponsorship behind the games though. They aren’t affected by the ads, they just want to play the games and have fun. If the game opened with a big sponsorship message to reinforce the idea that the game is an advertisement, A) they still might not understand – doesn’t sound like they are at high levels of reading or anything, and B) if it came up with a logo or something of the sponsoring brand of cereal, then the kids will just be getting branded before they even understand the idea of advertisement. Once kids get to a little older age, they can understand the distinction themselves. It seems like there isn’t a threatening gap of vulnerable mind in between the two ages.
This study is very interesting to me. As this article says, I think I really didn’t notice that the game that I was playing online was an advertisement when I was kid. However, even the children don’t notice about the fact, they should have some impression of the character or the product. I guess it could happen that some children would pick up the product from several kinds of similar product by the impression when they go shopping with there moms. Therefore, I don’t think all of the “advergames” don’t work to all kids. However, it’s obvious that TV commercial or some typical advertisements have more impact to them because it’s easier for them to recognize that this is an advertisement.
I see Bryce and Leah’s points about the article not stating the larget problem at hand (sales); however, I think it is not primarily about whether or not the advertisements made the kids want the product more but rather if the games even made and impression on the kids. The phrase “any publicity is good publicity” comes to my mind; it seems as though companies such as Honeycomb want the children to associate the game and the underlying be a rock star theme to their brand. Nonetheless, as the results of the study showed, only 10% of kids can pick up the mental hint…
Although it is not clearly stated in the article, I feel the issue is the labeling of an ad. Clearly based on the study, it was not recognizable to be a Honeycomb ad. This data gives an ethically questionable impression because information is withheld from some of these young consumers. While I don’t have particularly strong opinions about types of advertisements (having not seen the game the kids played) I do feel that it is necessary for ads to be labeled in distinctive ways.
If the kids don’t even know what company was doing the advertising then what’s the point? Kids are going to play games, duh. If an ad is entertaining then it’s more than an ad and doesn’t need to be pigeonholed, let the kids play! When guns and violence gets involved then I have issues but singing and dancing are pretty innocent.
I think we are immune, in this generation we pay attention to things for such small amounts of time that we don’t notice small things like why they are made the way they are or who makes them. it doesn’t surprise me at all that children were oblivious to the source of the games, i wouldn’t notice.
Seeing as I still eat cereal advertised at kids, I have been exposed to such advertising. On the side or back of boxes is usually some colorful picture of cartoon characters having a grand ole time with a link to a website underneath. In fact, as I am writing this, I remember being obsessed with a game I got out of a cereal box that was based around the cereal. It was only a demo though and to get the whole version you had to go online to the website and probably pay for it. Anyways, I can remember I did not care about the underlying advertising, seeing as I can’t even remember the brand of the cereal today.
Advertisers try to market to children using games, bright colors or characters from movies and tv shows to get the children’s attention. Happy Meal toys advertise for recent movies that have come out and children want to go see them. Kids won’t pay attention to who is doing the advertising or if they are specifically advertising something- all they care about are the games they can play or what character they get in their happy meal
Kids do not pay attention to the details or who is selling the product they are amused by gifts they will see or fun characters that show off the products. They assume kids with the bright colors and the fun play images they put into their designs.
First of all if kids fail to see that these games are in a way ads for products and affected in a negative way, then parents should block those sites. Using games to advertise a product isn’t new. Like the cars in the malls that people sign up to win or Disneyland. They involve games or fun. I don’t get what the big deals is about. Of course gets aren’t going to get it, they’re kids they don’t get much. When I was little I never read the instructions to anything and just tried to figure it out. The problem should be how long do these kids stay online and what ways do parents have to protect their kids from these websites.
I agree with this article. I don’t believe children are able to tell the differences between games and advertisements placed in the ads. It is even hard for me to sometimes recognize ads embedded in movies and shows that I watch, and I have had an educational background on them. Advertisers need to understand this, and be able to help children understand that they are being targeted to brands through the use of gaming.
I never really though about this angle of online advertising. Sometimes it can even be hard for me to know that something is an ad, so I can imagine it is very difficult for children, even with a message. It seems like lots of scams try to seem like they’re not advertisements, and they can occasionally trick people when they haven’t seen an ad done that way before. I’ve even lost a computer to an “antivirus” program that popped up through an ad. But for kids it’s gotta be almost impossible to discern the difference sometimes. It’s a tough situation because these sites probably need the ad revenue to stay running.
Comments are closed.
Depicts 320,000 light bulbs, equal to the number of kilowatt hours of electricity wasted in the United States every minute from inefficient residential electricity usage (inefficient wiring, computers in sleep mode, etc.).