Last week, I wrote a bit about Peggy Charren (1928-2015) and her activities in founding and leading the Action for Children’s Television (ACT) organization that sought to limit children’s exposure to advertisements on TV. You can read about her resounding successes in the 1970s here. In short, by the end of the decade, Charren’s pressure on the FTC and FCC led both bodies to heavily regulate children’s television, almost to the point of authorizing an outright ban on advertising to children under 8. This was predicated on the argument that advertisements targeting children were inherently deceptive, as most young kids did not yet have the cognitive ability to understand the purpose of advertising, nor could they differentiate between sales pitches and entertainment. Despite ACT’s successes, the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 brought their efforts to a screeching halt. Mark Fowler, Reagan’s FCC appointee, vowed to deregulate the children’s television landscape in its entirety. Today, I’d like to write a few words on the results of this deregulation and Charren and ACT’s sustained efforts to combat it.

Before delving into the deregulation of advertising, it is essential to establish that much of the debate surrounding advertisements targeting children was inherently a question of childhood development and psychology. Indeed, ACT, the federal government, broadcasters, and corporations all funded studies seeking to establish children’s cognitive abilities that would inform policy and best practices related to television advertisements. Opponents of advertising believed that the overcommercialization of childhood had detrimental effects on children’s development, as it exploited “feelings of inadequacy and sought to market products as a means of alleviating consumers’ negative self-image.” [1]

We can distill the primary argument that advertising harms children from a social and political lens. First, many parents believe that “advertising affects children detrimentally” because it was “manipulative, promoting materialism, stifling creativity, and disrupting parent-child relationships.” [2] The manipulation and promotion of materialism are more self-evident critiques of advertising, as the entire institution relies on persuasive and not entirely truthful pitches to sell products. However, the last two significant critiques-- stifling creativity and disrupting parent-child relationships-- are less noticeable on the surface.

Creativity is often predicated on developing novel ideas through a vibrant imagination, often materialized through play. Media, and by extension advertising, limits children’s imaginations by confining them to pre-packaged fantasies that teach children the ‘proper’ way to play. For example, a child imagining a battle with castles and fantastical creatures is limitless in their mind and allows for creative scenarios that can be represented through play in various ways. But, when that exact scenario becomes commercialized through something like Grayskull Castle, a child’s imagination is limited to how they are urged to play by the commercial promoting it. This is a bit of an exaggeration, as children often find novel ways to play with toys, but it holds that commercials often illustrate the way a child should play with a product rather than allowing them the space to imagine ways they could play.

Okay, so all of that was a long-winded and not-so-elegant way of saying that advertising packages creativity to children. For a great discussion about the purpose of play, see Gary Cross’ Kid’s Stuff: Toys and the Changing World of American Childhood.

Regarding the second social critique of advertising, the disruption of parent-child relationships, we must turn again to advertising researchers. Many studies have determined that children have an immense influence on their parent’s spending habits through a phenomenon known as the “nag effect.” As I’m sure many of you are aware, children are often very persistent when asking for toys or food. This persistence has an enormous effect on chipping away at parents’ resolve, and many modern parents readily admit to giving in to their kids' demands. If you’re interested in this, I suggest you check out Mary C. Martin’s meta-study that I have linked below-- it is an excellent summation of decades of advertising research.

With that said, the social critiques of advertising feed the political response and attempts at regulation. Charren and ACT’s primary argument was that advertising was an inherently deceptive practice. This was especially true when it targeted young children, and the younger the child, the more misleading and immoral the practice was. Thus, regulation was necessary. At first, the FCC urged broadcasters to self-regulate, which many were willing to do if it meant avoiding cumbersome federal laws. The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) considered ACT’s critiques and adhered to regulating some of the most egregious practices (like host selling). Still, Charren did not accept this, arguing that advertisers had “proven to be an ineffectual restraint for manufacturers and broadcasters who do not maintain high standards of responsibility.” Because of the ambiguity, Charren continued to advocate for federal regulation. By the end of the 1970s, she seemed to have been successful, and the FCC considered banning all advertisements to children under 8.

This radically changed at the beginning of the 1980s. Reagan was successfully elected president for many reasons (check out Rick Perlstein’s Reaganland: America’s Right Turn 1976-1980 if you’re interested in this). For our purposes, the previous two decades of heavy federal regulation became wildly unpopular with the American public. The stagflation-- stagnant growth and high inflation--that plagued the Carter administration made any further attempts at limiting business politically unfeasible. Reagan’s election signaled a sharp reaction and a sweeping wave of deregulation, none of which was more comprehensive than the FCC’s new policies.

Mark Fowler was appointed head of the FCC in May of 1981. He promised to deregulate broadcasting across the board in hopes of allowing “maximum consumer choice and diversity.” Children’s television was not spared. Many pre-ACT guidelines went unenforced, and NAB (the self-regulatory body of broadcasters) abandoned their previous guidelines. Children’s television dramatically changed, to Charren’s dismay. Advertisers and broadcasters were careful not to blatantly skirt previous regulations; they were a bit more subtle than that. Instead, they developed new mediums to sell products, none of which were as effective as the program-length commercials.

Program-length commercials (PLCs) were shows designed with one purpose in mind: to sell toys. This practice began with He-Man and the Masters of the Universe in 1983 and continued with a litany of other shows such as GI Joe: Real American Heroes and Care Bears. Toy companies like Hasbro developed these shows to promote their new product lines. It was not considered “host selling” because there was no host. The advertising was conceived as the show itself. Watch any given episode of GI Joe, and you may be shocked to see that every vehicle, character, or location is referred to as its associated product. No character ever worries about a jet above but worries about the “Skystriker” in the air. Why tell your allies to get in the Jeep when you can direct them to the “Vamp MK-II?” In a brilliant move, toy makers synthesized entertainment and advertising, facilitated by broadcasters operating in a deregulated landscape that saw Saturday morning cartoons as a 4-hour block of advertisements.

This is getting long again. I may post again next week and discuss how ACT responded-- or tried to, at least.

​

[1]Calvert, Sandra L. “Children as Consumers: Advertising and Marketing.” The Future of Children 18, no. 1 (2008): 205–34. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20053125.

[2] Martin, Mary C. “Children’s Understanding of the Intent of Advertising: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 16, no. 2 (1997): 205–16. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30000445.

[3] Mueller, Milton. “Interview with Mark S. Fowler.” Reason. November, 1981. https://reason.com/1981/11/01/interview-with-mark-fowler/