In today’s world of consumerism, advertisements have risen with a variety of false and inappropriate contents. This results in some regulatory bodies to regulate content that targets vulnerable children. However, some opponents argue and state that restricting advertisements can stifle children’ creativity and imagination. While I acknowledge exposing children to diverse content has some merits, stricter regulations must be enforced on harmful commercials in order to ensure their holistic development.
Those who believe advertisements have become less significant and point to the fact that vulnerable children are easily attracted by appealing animations. Given the fact that children are undeniably lacking the maturity and knowledge required to distinguish between factual information and persuasive marketing. Corporations often employ artistic animations and celebrities endorsements to entice young audiences, regardless of their actual value and necessities. Take Lunchly as an example, a prominent food brand established by 3 content creators MrBeast, KSI and Logan Paul. Leveraged by the promotional campaigns and influencers’ reputation, these can easily capture the eye of children. However, their products have gained persistent criticism for their nutritional quality, highlighting the moulded cheese, high calories and exorbitant prices, leading to numerous dissatisfactions from parents and medical professionals. Consequently, if children are captivated by advertisements without realising actual merits, they often waste financial resources on unnecessary items. Another tangible reason is health risks, particularly for the underaged youngsters. Specifically, food companies often make false assumptions about their products and their background quality. They sometimes turn in expired products and use an excessive amount of chemical products over the permitted level so as to mitigate their overall import and production cost. For instance, Prime, a popular drink brand promoted by Logan Paul, a fitness influencer. Initially, it is widely known as an energy drink for all ages. In fact, some researchers find that it contains a high amount of caffeine, which can negatively affect children’ health. As a result, absent government inventions, deceptive claims by companies and influencers exacerbate health risks among young audiences. From this angle, we cannot deny that policy-makers should exercise strict control over commercial content.
On the other hand, some individuals hold the opposite view and claim that exposing children to a wide range of commercial content is beneficial for their creativity and imagination. When children are exposed to unique storytelling and colourful animations, it can instill in them a sense of inspiration for their future occupation such as marketing, or develop their critical-thinking and imagination. Consequently, excessive restrictions on advertisements may constrain children’s cognitive growth and limit their exposure to innovative ideas, driving the belief that may do more harm than good to their intellectual development.
In conclusion, while letting children be exposed to advertisements improve their creativity and imagination, the case for health risks and how children are easily lured to false commercials are the stronger ones. Governments ought to prohibit deceptive and misleading content in order to create a more ethical advertising environment and instill in business a sense of responsibility in promoting true values.