The Product is Youth: Teen Marketing and the Selling of Tomorrow
by Trevor Norris, a graduate student at OISE, and Carly Stasko, a media activist and educator

On Tuesday November 2 at the NFB, the Association for Media Literacy held an event in which four panellists from the marketing and advertising world described the ins and outs of marketing to teens and tweens. Ranging from trendy mothers to hip young males, the panellists shared one thing in common: a belief that consumerism and consumer society is here to stay. Perhaps where they differed is with respect to what this implies for how we should live in response. The debate was lively, especially once the audience got involved. This review will mention a few of the key themes which arose, and will also provide a critical response to many of the more provocative ones. But before going further, some background.

We can notice that important changes are happening today to corporations, and therefore to our society. While corporations once focused on the production of concrete physical products, they are increasingly focused on the production of images and meanings: brands and logos. Thus, advertising and marketing has grown ever more prevalent in our society, and there are fewer parts of our day when we are not exposed to these signs and images: when filling up our cars, riding elevators, or waiting for the subway. In schools, ads can increasingly be found in hallways, classrooms, and even in textbooks. What’s the result? According to the Millward Brown Global Market Research Agency, “nowhere else in the world are 8- to 12-year-olds more materialistic or more likely to believe that their clothes and brands describe who they are and define their social status.”  What this means is that it is essential for us to reflect on the role of what has been called the “Captains of Consciousness” or the “Hidden Persuaders” in shaping our values and culture.

But back to our panel. The four included Max Valiquette, President of “Youthography,” one of Canada’s largest youth marketing agencies; Debbie Gordon, Managing Director of “Mediacs” Media Literacy Workshops; Anne Sutherland, EVP Nucleus Strategic Planning and co-author of “Kidfluence: why kids today mean business”; and Richard Kanee, Manager of New Media Business Development for CHUM Interactive. Several key themes arose through their discussion, which will be presented in order of their appearance.

Rights, Choice, and Freedom

Much of the description of marketing presented by these four was framed in terms of how it improves our ‘rights’ and ‘choices’, that as consumers we are increasingly free as we are presented with more and more choices, and insofar as nothing stands in the way of these choices. However, the choices of others affect us each in very different ways, and the choices of a few people have wide reaching effects on many others around the world. Furthermore, while we may have countless choices in our lives, from cars to candy, there are many choices which we simply don’t have. For example, while it’s true that I can choose to shop and consume less, I can’t choose to live in a society with less consumerism. And while consumers may have ‘rights’, perhaps we also have a right to live in a society with less consumerism, or I have a ‘right’ to prevent the society I live in and everyone around me from becoming increasingly materialistic.

But even more troubling is the ways in which a consumer driven culture uses resources and creates waste in unsustainable ways, as well as perpetuating unhealthy mental and physical lifestyles ranging from passivity to obesity and diabetes. And yet the choice to choose less is simply not on the radar of marketers, for obvious reasons: there’s no money to be made from such messages. Therefore it is not really a choice that is promoted with equal vigor or persuasiveness. While it is the job of marketers to research and present choices which will be financially profitable, it tends to be in the interest of educators and parents to create choices for today’s youth that exist beyond the limited paradigm of commodities.

A great deal of financial resources are invested each year into market research so that business can better understand the desires, interests, concerns and ideals of today’s youth. It is argued that this allows them to determine what choices young people will make, yet the true goal is to determine which choices will bring financial reward.  If a student chooses to have less bullying in their school related to the brand of sneakers they wear, this is not a choice they will be offered by advertisers.  If however, the student wishes to purchase sneakers associated with a celebrity that they admire, that is the type of choice they can be sold.  What became apparent during the AML discussion on youth marketing, was that notions of choice are influenced by the interests of those involved.  There is a reason why teachers refer to young people as students and the stake holders of the future, while individuals who work in marketing tend to refer to youth as a “market”–and hopefully as a loyal customer in the future.

There are other differences in perspective worthy of note.  For example each panellist at various stages of the discussion referred to today’s youth as “savvy”, suggesting that they are more media literate than any generation before them.  However, being savvy in this sense means that they can identify and differentiate between different products and brands, which does not necessarily indicate any kind of critical understanding about how advertising works or the implications of consumer culture on health, politics or the environment. Thus, when the critical eye of the young consumer was addressed, it was in relation to their responses to advertising, which were a matter of taste rather than opinion.  Max, for example, described how difficult it was to sell to young people today because they’ve seen so much advertising: “if an ad isn’t smart and funny, then they will reject it.” His challenge as a marketer is to keep the ever-shortening attention span of today’s youth focused on his commercial message long enough for the desirable associations to register.  In contrast, a parent or teacher has a different challenge: to promote a kind of literacy that moves beyond “savvy” and into the realm of creative and critical thinking, beyond knowing what they like or don’t like but understanding why they respond to commercial messages in certain ways, how that effect was achieved, and what implications this may have on their world view or the world itself.

The divide between civic interests and financial interests regarding today’s youth wasn’t ignored during the discussion.  In fact it was most delineated when the issue of responsibility arose.  This perhaps was one of the more contentious topics that could have benefited from more discussion and debate.  Within the context of a discussion on ethics, several times the responsibility of advertisers and market researchers were deflected onto parents, governments and the corporations that employ marketing.

At one point Max shared his concerns about issues such as youth political apathy and environmental and political issues such as our dependency on oil and how that relates to war and terrorism. However, he honestly conceded that he doesn’t know how society will respond or restore peace. At the end of the day, his job is to make sure his staff gets paid and his dog gets fed. Will the answer to these concerns present itself as a consumer choice? Not likely. It is beyond the world of selling and choosing that such solutions will be created, beyond individual decisions and personal preferences. Consumerism speaks to us only as isolated individuals but doesn’t speak to us about larger social concerns, and problems are framed as purely individual issues that can be resolved only through individual acts of consumption.

For example, the Canadian group Adbusters has been trying for years to have their ‘uncommercials aired on TV and in newspapers, commercials which discourage shopping. Networks decline airing them because it would be too much at odds with the interests of their other advertisers. From the perspective of the role of media in our society, perhaps what’s most unfortunate about this situation is that the dominant mode of communication only communicates one message. So there is really only one kind of choice that is presented to us: the choice to consume.

Perhaps more significantly, many important things simply can’t be understood only in terms of choice. The language of rights and choice still speaks to me primarily as an isolated individual, as if I consisted largely of needs and desires, driven chiefly by the mentality of ‘looking out for number one, concerned above all with ‘me and my stuff.’ What kind of a world is that? And what kind of people fill it?

Young people feel empowered when they are told that their opinion matters. What kind of power is it when only their consumer interests or their ability to influence their family and friends that is valued?  What happens to the notion of the citizen when only the consumer is of interest?

Political apathy

Citizenship is associated with the next issue raised, of politics and political apathy. Anne Sutherland suggested that consumerism might help increase political participation because it will mean that youth become more demanding and empowered and so expect more of government. So marketing and advertising could in fact increase political engagement. Present political apathy is said to result from ‘bad marketing on the part of politicians, that politics is not positioned as ‘cool.

And yet many people are disengaged because politics is already so overmarketed, that politicians and issues become mere images and slogans rather than genuine and personal connections and identifications. As McLuhan once said, “Politics will be replaced by imagery. The politician will be only too happy to abdicate in favor of his image because the image will be much more powerful than he ever could be.”  We simply become even more preoccupied with products. Maybe people might gain more interest in politics and be less cynical about their ability to influence the world around them in ways other than shopping if politicians and issues seemed to be more ‘real’ and more human. What is problematic is the way that marketing and consumerism encourages us to think about the political world around us: We engage in politics only so as to better protect “me and my stuff.”

One of the first questions was about needs and their creation. Richard Kanee conceded that “we ran out of real needs a long time ago”. Another said “false needs are too fragile because they are the easiest to deflate”.

The family

One of the interesting arguments advanced by Anne Sutherland is her description of changes in family dynamics. She suggested that Boomers who had grown up in authoritarian households were trying to raise their kids differently by involving them in family discussions in a much more democratic manner. Parents will increasingly ask their kids opinions about consuming decisions because they are afraid of making a mistake. Thus, business responded by speaking to younger people, who are now the educated experts within the family and appreciated for their extensive product knowledge.

However, this is perhaps to put the cart before the horse: while some parents may ask for their kids’ opinion, many others are simply overwhelmed by constant berating. Few parents will be grateful for marketers while walking through the candy section of a store or driving past a fast food restaurant. Kids have been described as the new “Trojan Horse” into the family, who influence their parents through what some have called the “Nag Factor” or “Pester Power”. This is true not only of things kids want for themselves, but the products parents buy. Thus, advertising may have influenced family dynamics in such a way that parents concede to their kids rather than search out their expert opinion.

The first question, raised by host Barry Duncan, set the tone for much of the following Q & A period: what are the ethical implications of marketing. The first audience question tied this issue back the family, provoking cheers from the audience: when kids become corporate spokespeople within the family it is a new kind of child labor.

As the discussion continued there was a growing consensus among panellists that responsibility for any ethical or social problems associated with marketing be passed on to the corporations they work for, that advertisers are merely a part of a larger system over which they have little or no control. Thus, the relationship between marketing and society is such a complicated game of chicken and egg as to be virtually inexplicable. What is implied is that therefore things should proceed as they have been, that such a complicated system is best left untouched, that it is better to simply benefit from the way things are than to try to imagine or initiate any alternative.

Both Max and Anne argued that if someone were to take responsibility to restrict youth marketing it should be government or family. Anne in particular described how she and her husband who is also a market researcher had decided, based on their research of early childhood development, that they wouldn’t allow their child to watch television before the age of 6.  She also referred to the progressive laws in Quebec that prohibit television advertising to young children.  In both cases she suggested that the power and responsibility resided with government and parents and not with those who are creating the advertising research or content.

It is interesting that in a discussion where choice was so celebrated by those working in advertising, that they often deferred to their own limited choices. For example, Anne recounted a campaign in which Zellers, in the interest of mothers, had attempted to offer fashions for young girls that were age appropriate despite the influence of adult sexualized fashions on young girls fuelled by pop artists such as Christina Agulera and Britanny Spears. However, she explained, that mothers instead took their daughters and dollars elsewhere and hence Zellers had no choice but to offer similar styles if they were to remain competitive. Anne also explained that their research showed that parents often would ask their kids what specific brands of household products such as cereal they should buy. Anne argued that since parents were asking their kids such questions, the kids learned that it was important to pay attention to advertising, and hence advertisers had no “choice” but to target kids in their advertising campaigns.

Advertising consumerism

It was interesting to learn about how Max Valiquette became eligible and skilled for his job as a marketer and market researcher: because he was such an avid consumer of popular culture that he was knowledgeable of trends and the tastes of his peers. His excitement about popular culture was clear, and it is worthy of note that even he felt surprised that he was being paid to do what he had been paying to do before: to observe consumer culture and determine what he liked and didn’t like about it. Interestingly, this reflects the value that he now sees in the young participants of the focus groups his company “Youthography” performs. The value of today’s youth is to be found in their disposable income and “kidfluence”. While there is nothing particularly unethical about this it is clear that there is a disproportionate amount of resources invested in developing and understanding today’s youth as a market. In contrast, the limited and dwindling resources of governments and families interested in the “whole child” are under such threat that it is often believed that only thr0ough commercial sponsorship can they be sustained. Thus, what choice is there for young people who wish to be valued, invested in, and perceived as more than just a market?

Max Valiquette went on to say that “Advertising pays for most of the culture we consume.” This notion is very confusing: it would seem to imply that advertising is a form of public service. And yet culture has been around a lot longer than advertising. Perhaps what advertising brings is a particular kind of culture, that advertising helps turn our culture into a culture of consumers. In fact, maybe it is advertising that consumes our culture.

While some may have left with a deeper appreciation for the service marketers provide, the position of these reviewers has surely been apparent. Marshall McLuhan once said that “all advertising advertises advertising” . But it may in fact be closer to the truth to say that what advertising advertises is not only a specific product but rather the values of a life centred around consumption, that advertising advertises consumer values.

Marketers help deepen our attachment to commodities, reinforce the notion that happiness and a positive self-image comes from acquisition, and help ensure that we associate products only with the symbolic meaning which marketers create and not the conditions of their production. In doing so they create a culture of consumers, a “consumer culture”, at the same time that any alternatives are not presented.

While it is the goal of society to ensure the well-rounded development of our youth and the future they will inherit, the goal of advertising is unapologetically and narrowly focused on encouraging consumption and brand loyalty. Choice is encouraged in so far as choice is a product. Media Literacy is encouraged in so far as children are able to use the technology that expose them to the messages of advertisers and are able to differentiate between the different brands of choice for sale.

Imagine, Design, Create
As media literacy educators we are equally if not more interested in the ability of students to create new choices for themselves than that they make wise choices from the options made available to them. Like the classic “choose your own adventure” book, consumer culture offers a variety of choices that can present the illusion of adventure and freedom. However, true freedom comes when the reader can write their own story, and not just “choose”, but imagine, design, and create.

This review exemplifies a clear bias towards the civic responsibility of empowering today’s youth with media literacy skills and the opportunities to express their perspectives that reside beyond their consumer preferences. However, for that very reason, it was of value to see the situation from a different perspective. While the power and numbers of marketing messages can seem overwhelming, it became clear from listening to the panelists what a challenge it is to successfully market to todays’ youth. It is also clear that while great amounts of money are spent to understand and influence today’s youth, much of that research provides data that is ineffective for explaining. unpredictable and changing young people.  Perhaps it is because the true desires of young people, or all people for that matter, cannot be simply rewarded with commodities.

What advertisers call “savvy” among young consumers, could also be referred to as simply cynical or media saturated. Advertisers are having an increasingly difficult time standing out and being heard within the cacophony of consumer messages. For a brand to acquire “mindshare” has become a notable challenge now that the mind itself is becoming more and more occupied by messages. While the end result of this is to promote a culture of general consumerism, regardless of particular brand loyalties, it is equally resulting in more and more criticism of consumerism as it becomes clear that products do not reward shoppers with the happiness they desire, and that such happiness is fleeting as the symbols of success become obsolete with increasing speed, pushing us to buy more — or perhaps to give up instead.

The reason advertisers are interested in youth is the same reason educators, activists and optimists are so determined to work with young people: they are powerful, open minded, and are still forming their world views.  Whatever is prevalent becomes normal and unquestioned.  Children growing up with their own cell phone at age five don’t think it’s strange, just as many of us don’t question why we now buy our water in bottles.  Humans are adaptive and young people even more so. While this adaptivity can help us it can also inhibit new perspectives on societal change. Will today’s youth accept unsustainable consumerism as a cooked frog accepts the increasing temperature of the water in its cooking pot, or will they discover new ways of creating a balance between consumption and preservation, choice and creation, markets and movements?

Many thanks to the organizers of this event for giving us a rare glimpse into the minds of those so busily examining our own.