You bet.
Stanford University School of Medicine and Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital just shared snippets of a study that will be released in the August issue of Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine.
The study finds that kids aged 3 to 5, when presented with identical foods — one in a McDonald’s wrapper and the other without — overwhelmingly rated the branded one as tasting better.
Proof of the Happy Meal in action.
Nic Jones at BrandChannel.com explores if it is the brand or the hype around the brand that ignites a child’s interest and ultimately, loyalty. Jones goes on to explore some of the different ways to slice the brand pie in the fickle kids marketplace.
Martin Lindstrom picks up the discussion, saying that the 8-12 year-old crowd is demanding 24/7 access to the brands that matter to them. He cites an example from Kellogg’s.
Kids across one local market were asked to send a text message to Kellogg’s voting on their favorite song. Hundreds of SMS messages arrived during the day. But what took them by total surprise was that the peak response time was logged in at 3:00 am. Yes, that’s right, 3:00 am.
Lindstrom echos the sentiments of Jones, saying that the key to successful branding within the kids marketplace is being able to jig and jag as the kids’ attention spans shift from one product to another.
Kid brand giant Nickelodeon even hosts an event, The Nickelodeon Brand Equity Marketing Forum to discuss the trends and power of aiming your marketing/branding arrow at 8-14 year-olds.
I don’t think anyone can deny the influence of branding on children. Whether you see it as sin or salvation — its been proven too many times to deny.
So here’s my question. What, if any, responsibility do we have as marketers, if we are targeting children? Is McDonalds evil for pushing its fattening foods to 3-year olds? Is it irresponsible for Nickelodeon to teach others how to influence the watching and buying decisions of the tweens?
Or does caveat emptor apply, no matter the buyer’s age or sensibility?





