CopyCat Kids?: The Influence of Television Advertising on Children and Teenagers

Copycat Kids? The Influence of Television Advertising on Children and Teenagers

www.itc.org.uk

Copycat Kids? The Influence of Television Advertising on Children and Teenagers Report by Pam Hanley, ITC in conjunction with Wendy Hayward, Leah Sims, Joss Jones of The Qualitative Consultancy

October 2000

Photo credit front cover ©BUBBLES/ Loisjoy Thurstun

ISBN: 0 900485 83 3

CONTENTS 1

BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

04

2

SUMMARY

05

3

METHOD AND SAMPLE

07

4

PERSPECTIVE ON CHILDREN AND YOUTH

09

5

YOUTH CULTURE

12

6

INFLUENCES

15

7

ATTITUDES TO TELEVISION

20

8

ATTITUDES TO TELEVISION ADVERTISING

34

9

ITC/REGULATORY ISSUES

47

COPYCAT KIDS?

2

1 BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVES The Independent Television Commission (ITC) receives significant numbers of complaints from viewers that children and young people might copy or be harmfully influenced by undesirable actions or ideas in television advertising. This relates both to direct emulation, ie the copying of dangerous or antisocial behaviour or actions, and to more general emulation, ie encouraging or condoning negative, self-destructive attitudes. Although most of the cases brought to the attention of the ITC are judged not to require intervention, there is convincing evidence that, in at least some circumstances, harm can result. One famous example was the Tango Orange advertisement from 1992. This showed a genie-type character slapping a youth on both cheeks to represent the sensation of drinking Tango. The ITC banned the commercial when evidence emerged that a playground craze for copying the action had resulted in cases of perforated eardrums. The ITC wanted to commission research designed to ensure that its decisions on the acceptability of commercials are based on a sufficient understanding of what factors or elements of television advertising might influence children or young people harmfully. For example, do animation, fantasy or humour have less impact than gritty reality? Do commercials have more influence than programmes which might show similar behaviour? What about music videos, which are in some ways similar to advertisements, eg repeated, short and focused and often with high production values? In particular, the following issues needed to be investigated: (a) Physical danger (i) For very young and inexperienced children, there is the possibility that they may copy attention-grabbing and intriguing actions seen on the screen, such as climbing out of windows or balancing on bridges. (ii) Older children or teenagers may, for example, see characters daring each other to walk along a dangerous precipice, and be tempted with friends to do the same thing. (b) Culture Negative, cynical or antisocial attitudes displayed on screen may encourage or endorse similar attitudes among older children and teenagers (eg denigrating education; annoying neighbours with loud music). Although it was recognised that no research was likely to be able to provide empirical evidence of cause and effect, this project was designed to probe deeper than simple viewer attitudes by drawing on the practical experience of those with relevant expertise, including parents, teachers and care workers, as well as children themselves.

4 COPYCAT KIDS?

2 SUMMARY • The research found a broad consensus across the very mixed sample (experienced professionals working with children as well as parents and children themselves). • The key components of youth culture emerged as sport (especially football among boys), pop music, computer games, hanging out with friends (more so for teenagers) and the media (primarily television). • There was broad agreement across those working with children that they are becoming more challenging and aggressive and less respectful. • The key influences on children came from those with whom they are in direct contact: parents, other adult relatives, older siblings, friends, peers and older children – along with teachers, play leaders, sports coaches and carers. • Television was spontaneously identified as a secondary, but still powerful, influence. Role models such as pop stars, sporting heroes (especially footballers) and actors were in the same bracket. • Television was perceived as working on several levels, affecting behaviour and attitudes both positively and negatively. Respondents found it impossible to measure its actual effects. Nevertheless, some of the examples shown in the research were widely regarded as potentially harmful. • Several television programmes were consistently mentioned as being an actual or potentially undesirable influence on children. Chief among these were Power Rangers, South Park, World Wrestling Federation and, to a lesser extent, The Simpsons. • In theory, parents were responsible for monitoring children’s television consumption, but in practice many were less than successful and others didn’t even try. • There was a widespread belief that children are affected by advertising on television. This manifested itself through pester power, direct copying of behaviour, and a more subtle and gradual effect on attitudes. The concern was felt most strongly for children without much family support. Tango Orange ‘Slap’ was the only advertisement to be mentioned spontaneously but the discussions often revealed concerns about a small number of other commercials which had actually influenced behaviour, or else were recognised as having the potential to do so. • There was a feeling that, because advertisements usually appear again and again, any negative impact can be magnified. There was a parallel concern about programmes such as South Park where the same elements or themes appear in each episode.

COPYCAT KIDS?

4

• From the specific examples offered, as well as from respondents’ general experience, the following factors seem to be significant in encouraging emulation of advertisements: * behaviour which is easy to copy, eg no special equipment needed * behaviour which is similar to or a development of ‘ordinary’ behaviour * a familiar or accessible situation or setting * a simple and easily understood scenario or storyline * potential for emotional empathy * intrigue and challenge * wicked or forbidden things * participants ‘get away with it’ * humour and jokes – ‘a laugh’ * presence of a well-known character, role model or celebrity * product relevant or appealing to child * shown at an accessible time for relevant age group * high and appealing production values (eg colour, music, action). • Although the importance of free speech was acknowledged, the majority of respondents agreed that independent regulation of television advertising was desirable, because children were impressionable, parents were not always responsible and even responsible parents had increasing difficulty monitoring what their children watched. There was much debate and uncertainty about where the boundaries should be drawn; how to balance protection and creative freedom in advertising; and whether the interests of the most vulnerable, rather than the majority, should be paramount.

5

COPYCAT KIDS?

3 METHOD AND SAMPLE A mixture of qualitative research techniques was used to elicit the required information. There were three main strands: • Sixteen group discussions: • Eleven group discussions split between parents and those caring for or working with children in a professional or voluntary capacity. Some of the latter were also parents so could draw on experiences from both perspectives. The groups were constructed as follows: Parents of children 3-6 ABC1

Parents of children 3-6 C2DE

Parents of children 7-10 ABC1

Parents of children 7-10 C2DE

Parents of children 11-16 ABC1

Parents of children 11-16 C2DE

• two group discussions with teachers and playground assistants (one group from primary/nursery schools, one from secondary schools) • one group of leisure workers consisting of people running a number of different leisure activities for children, including after-school clubs, sports teams and uniformed organisations such as the Brownies • one group of those offering various aspects of ‘social care’ for children, covering fostering (including ‘special needs’), adoption and social workers in family support centres • one group of senior professionals working with children across a range of disciplines: a child psychologist, a police school and youth liaison officer, a head teacher of a primary school and a head of pastoral care in a secondary school. They were joined by two representatives from major children’s charities, both of whom also had relevant previous experience (as a local authority social worker and a psychologist) • Sixteen x 20-30 minute depth interviews with respondents recruited off the street in Lewisham. Split evenly between boys and girls and covering every year of the age range 9-16. Socio-economic spread (2B, 5C1, 4C2, 3D and 2E). • One school study day (a primary school with nursery provision in the Berkshire area) giving the opportunity to observe children at work and play, as well as talking to pupils about their behaviour and holding discussions with staff at all levels.

COPYCAT KIDS?

6

The groups were shown compilation tapes of programme clips, music videos, computer game action and commercials to stimulate discussion. These included a wide range of items including several, for comparative purposes, which were not expected to cause any concern at all. All quotes cited in this report are attributed to the group who made them. Where a series of quotes form part of an exchange, the attribution can be found at the end. The research was commissioned from The Qualitative Consultancy and carried out by Wendy Hayward, Leah Sims and Joceline Jones between 17 January and 29 February 2000.

7

COPYCAT KIDS?

4 PERSPECTIVE ON CHILDREN AND YOUTH The different groups of adults came from different viewpoints relating to children and young people, as outlined below. PARENTS

The job of parenting was perceived as crammed with highs and lows. Although watching children learn, grow and achieve was a joy, it was often a struggle to facilitate their development while maintaining a degree of discipline and respect for others. Many parents were of the view that times had changed since ‘their’ day. There had been a relaxation in attitudes towards notions of ‘acceptable’ behaviour in children and a stronger focus on mutual respect and co-operation between parents and children. This was accompanied by a loosening of the parental leash, allowing greater autonomy for children at an earlier age. For many parents, nurturing and instilling socially acceptable behaviour and values in their children, and preparing them for later life – while also allowing them the freedom to make their own discoveries and mistakes – was a constant battle or preoccupation: “The worst thing is back-chatting.” “It is all around you all the time. If you weren’t more tolerant you would be pulling your hair out all the time.” In addition, parents were mindful of the external influences on their children: their exposure to school, their neighbourhood and their peers was perceived as presenting additional social pressures and problems: “My boys are both influenced by the way their friends speak at school … they want to wear trainers to school all the time because their friends do.” “Things like if he plays out the front which I don’t like him doing. The children are quite rough on our estate and they’ll come in and they’ll just be extra rude and extra cheeky and I know it’s just what he’s picked up off of them, which we don’t have in our house.”

TEACHERS AND SCHOOL STAFF

There was an overall perception among classroom and playground staff that the general behaviour of children today was much the same as it had always been. Whatever the characteristics of the catchment area, a range of behaviour was displayed. Mostly, the disruption was at a fairly low level, taking the form of chatting and passing notes, with some play-fighting and rowdiness. However, there were a few isolated incidents of disruptive or threatening behaviour at a much higher level: “Some of them are very clever at doing little things wrong … just sort of tapping their pens …” “There’s only a few that are really, really disruptive.” “There’s a more general thing on a day-to-day level and then you get the sort of incident once in a while where someone might strike a member of staff or throw furniture or something like that …” COPYCAT KIDS?

8

As the children got older, they became more challenging and less co-operative. However, there have been some recent changes in secondary teachers’ experience. First, the key age for rebellion and challenge was perceived to have fallen to around 11-12 years old (the age of secondary school entry, Year 7) as opposed to 15-16 previously: “I think it’s changed, when we first started teaching you’d have said the upper end – 15, 16 – I think to be perfectly honest the most difficult ones are the new Year 7s coming in …” “I’ve noticed more of the serious incidents dropping down the school over the years … you know the things that, when I first started teaching, you’d expect the more senior pupils to have done. Now it’s cropping up in Year 7 and 8 when years ago, I didn’t witness that.” There seemed to have been a marked change of attitude and a greater basis for challenge as children were more aware of their rights as individuals and as ‘consumers’ of education: “You get youngsters who just refuse to do as you ask them, again which seems to be on the increase, and I don’t think that’s just in schools, I think that’s generally just part of life at the moment …” Children were also showing an increased confidence in challenging authority: “I’ve noticed over the last two or three years they’ve come in with the idea – not all of them but a lot of them – that they are absolutely God’s gift to the universe, they have their rights and they’re going to do what they want …” Some developments in primary age behaviour were also noted by the head teacher who was interviewed. With the exception of boys playing football or play-fighting, children appeared to be generally less able or inclined to occupy themselves in the playground. They were also more prone to become enraged, described as the ‘red mist’ phenomenon. The use of swearing and foul language (between each other in the playground or out of school) was felt to have increased. Across all the respondents, there was a widespread belief that parental co-operation with the teaching community had diminished – although this was thought to be less so in the middle classes – and was shown by a lack of basic communicative skills or co-operation in primary schools: “It’s becoming increasing more difficult because there is a lot less parental co-operation in a lot of places.” It was often perceived to be a result of broad social issues and influences, such as drugs, alcohol, social deprivation or exclusion. Children from single parent families were also cited: “One parent families, I think that’s a familiar problem … Not having a father figure, I think sometimes it can affect the balance of the child … I’ve noticed some of the children I teach who are from one parent families, sometimes they’re lacking in confidence or they can be quite attention seeking.”

9

COPYCAT KIDS?

Parents’ perception of a more dangerous society meant that children were being kept safe indoors but ‘free play’ was restricted. Additionally, social and political changes were felt to have contributed to changing the status of teachers in society, for example, the development of parents’ and children’s charters: “I’m not joking, it was a Thatcherite thing that everybody had rights and there were no responsibilities to go with them … and a lot of the youngsters that we’ve had coming in over the last few years are, of course, children of parents who had grown up through that particular era … it’s a selfish attitude. Never mind anyone else …” PROFESSIONAL WORKERS The leisure workers were committed to giving children a better ‘quality of life’, AND OTHER CARERS and the main pleasure they got out of it was a sense of satisfaction in seeing the children enjoying themselves and seeing their achievements: “A good thing is, when you know that you’ve achieved something. If you start off getting to know the kids and it takes a long time, you work very hard doing it, working with the kids and after, it’s usually long-term that you actually get something good out of it. After a long time, you realise that you’re actually getting through to them and you feel like you’ve achieved something, so there’s quite a bit of satisfaction.” LEISURE WORKERS

“Seeing the enjoyment that they’re getting out of activities we provide …” LEISURE WORKERS

The main problems were bad behaviour, challenging attitudes and the noise levels: “They just don’t know how to behave! “They’re very noisy … “They don’t listen at all.” LEISURE WORKERS

From the perspective of the carers and senior professionals, children were considered to be thinking for themselves and being more assertive. The key negative aspects were a greater incidence of violence and aggression among girls and younger children and a lack of respect for authority: “If I don’t like what you do then I go home and tell my dad or my mum and he’ll get you, and I’ve actually had that said to me quite a few times, my dad will get you.” SENIOR PROFESSIONALS

“Schoolchildren don’t accept your moral authority in the way that they used to. I feel very much when I’m dealing with discipline issues that it’s, I’ll get through this, but you’re not going to change me sort of thing, I don’t hear what you’re saying.” SENIOR PROFESSIONALS

Other trends they identified were an increasing awareness of sexual issues and sexual activity at a younger age, more pressure on children to achieve educationally, and more broken families.

COPYCAT KIDS?

10

5 YOUTH CULTURE CHILDREN AND TEENAGERS

Respondents enjoyed a variety of leisure activities and interests. Playing sport was prevalent, particularly football for boys (and some younger girls aged 9-10). Other traditional sports were referred to, including swimming, tennis, netball and basketball. More fashion-driven sports, such as skateboarding and martial arts, were also pursued. Computer games were very popular across the age range, but especially for boys. There was a general preference for those where the players had to master skills, eg strategy and puzzle games, driving, football and fighting. Special effects (including blood and gore) definitely added value, not by making the game more realistic, but more interesting and entertaining. Media of one sort or another featured strongly for all ages, with mention of television, videos or cinema and magazines. Music was a key pastime for many. The favourite bands or artists were driven by age group: younger children liked the ones whose dress or dance routines they could copy, whereas older teenagers had more adult tastes. Spending time with friends became increasingly important as young people progressed through their teens. The boys tended to play football, chat and loiter whereas the girls preferred shopping and doing their hair and make up. All ages were susceptible to fashions and crazes. At the younger end, these often related to toys or activities, for example Pokémon and Pogs. Older respondents were more interested in clothes, labels and hairstyles.

PARENTS

Like the children, parents identified playing sports (primarily football) as a key activity for their children. They also spent considerable time just ‘hanging-out’ with friends, either in their own or friends’ houses, at school or around the local neighbourhood. They watched television (free-to-air and pay channels), videos and movies, with and without parental supervision. Playing console games was popular, especially fighting and driving games. Many liked listening and dancing to music (especially Steps, Spice Girls, S Club 7, Five and Boyzone). They also indulged in more sedentary activities such as drawing, painting and reading magazines such as Sugar, Playstation and Shoot. Children’s ‘ideal’ pastimes were often thought to involve being given the freedom to do as they wished alone in their rooms or with friends – simply ‘chilling-out’, ‘playing’ or ‘mucking about’.

SCHOOL STAFF

The activities and interests of children and teenagers today were perceived to be extensive. For primary school children, mainstay activities included many sports – football in particular (mostly boys but also girls), plus ballet, swimming, skateboarding, mountain biking and martial arts. Toys of the moment were identified as Pokémon, Pogs, Aliens, Yo-Yos, Barbie and Nintendo. Television and videos, computer games and pop music were also important. Organised activity and leisure clubs such as Brownies and Cubs featured, but only for a minority. Playtime activity often reflected these interests (mainly football), but there was some imaginative play (more among younger children). The inspiration for this was sometimes traditional (shopping, ‘mummies and daddies’, stories from class) and sometimes more modern (pop groups, dance routines, television characters, Action Man):

11

COPYCAT KIDS?

“A lot of the girls like to make dances up and things or the latest pop craze … Steps and S Club 7.” “If they watch the video they can play the Lion King or …” Chasing, tag and other outdoor games like hop scotch and skipping were present in the playground. So was (play) fighting, with stylised moves borrowed from many sources – Power Rangers, Ninja Turtles, WWF and martial arts. Older girls, around 9-11, formed the group most inclined to be chatting and sitting around. Amongst secondary schoolchildren, chief interests and activities included sports, particularly for boys – the ubiquitous football being joined by skateboarding, mountain biking and martial arts: “A lot of skateboarding, that seems to be the in thing, and mountain-biking, but skateboarding in particular.” Social activity was rife, including chatting and talking, hanging out with friends, shopping and fashion, music, television, videos and cinema. Computer games, in particular those demanding high levels of skill (driving, fighting) or with ‘extreme’ entertainment value (for instance, gore and blood) were popular. These older students tended to be less active than primary school children at break time, and those who were not playing football generally just chatted: “I think the main break time activity has remained the same. You get the hard core who are dedicated to being on the football field virtually all the time and most of the rest are quite content to stand around talking.” Aspirational personalities (such as footballers, pop stars, actors and actresses) were closely linked to activities and interests across all age groups, but this was felt to have always been so: “A lot of them want to be footballers and things that are high profile things, but then I think we all did when we were little, didn’t we?” Despite children and teenagers aspiring to the material gains of the famous, teachers felt that such personalities were not always viewed as role models. They thought that many teenagers were capable of making considered judgements regarding ill behaviour or poor examples (for instance, drug taking): “They certainly look at what famous people do … whether they see them as role models I’m not sure.” “I don’t know if it’s a role model, it’s just ‘you know, I’d love to have what they’ve got’ …” The youngest primary schoolchildren (ie those in the nursery or reception classes) were sometimes thought to aspire to powerful or supernatural fantasy figures, such as the Rock (WWF wrestling participant), Action Man and Superman.

COPYCAT KIDS?

12

LEISURE WORKERS

This group had a relatively consistent viewpoint on children’s interests and pastimes (dependent on age group). They talked about television watching – which, at its worst, could be excessive and indiscriminate, as well as computer games and consoles (eg Playstation) and pop music. They too attested to the popularity of sport, along with other physical activities, for example bike-riding (among boys more than girls). Imaginative play was seen in various guises, including using Lego, with girls in particular playing with dolls: “Bikes and the boys … when you have sort of free time, the nursery boys head straight for the bikes and take those outside and then the girls go straight for the house and the babies and the Play Doh …”

13

COPYCAT KIDS?

6 INFLUENCES CHILDREN AND TEENAGERS

Children and teenagers tended to identify friends and peers as the most significant influences in their day-to-day lives. They had a need to be popular and have ‘mates’. This involved a certain amount of conforming in toys, speech, dress and appearance, attitude and behaviour. However, there was an awareness, particularly among older respondents, that peer pressure could be very negative. They referred to problems such as theft and drugs, especially on rougher estates, and that ‘bullying breeds bullying’. Children considered older siblings to be influential, often in a positive way. They had kudos simply by virtue of age, and could be a good source of ideas to impress friends. They recognised television as a source of inspiration, often for things which are simple to copy, such as clothes and style, language, actions and catchphrases. These were usually related to a specific programme or personality, for instance the band Steps, WWF (wrestling) and Ali G (spoof ‘black’ character on Channel 4).

ADULT PERCEPTIONS Parents saw role models as having a major influence on their children, with these generally identified as ‘nice’ or ‘funny’ teachers; friends; sports coaches; and parents, grandparents or older family members (siblings and cousins). Further from home, there were favourite footballers and pop-group celebrities (those with ‘girl/boy next door’ appeal were especially aspirational and easiest to relate to): “Shania Twain, she thinks she’s Shania Twain!” PARENTS

These could positively influence children, but also had the potential to exert negative pressure. The actions of poor teachers, badly behaved children, aggressive or foul-mouthed footballers, or anorexic pop-stars were seen as encouraging undesirable behaviour and attitudes. Once at school, a child’s peer-group was perceived to be highly influential. Less confident children, or those without the benefit of much family support, were considered particularly prone to the influence of stronger or older groups. Television was often spontaneously identified as another key influence, and within this advertising was occasionally mentioned as having had an impact on behaviour or attitudes: “This week we taped Honey I Shrunk the Kids off the Disney Channel and they were watching that, and that is it now – everything they do. They have taken on the names of the characters and they are acting out everything from the film, which isn’t a bad thing because there is nothing in it. But it did make me think, at least when I put a video on I know what I am giving them to watch, whereas some of the television channels, I just won’t let them watch.” PARENTS

“With Cartoon Network it seems to be … these sort of characters and all they are doing is screaming and shouting and fighting … when they have watched it they go off haywire and they are screaming and shouting at each other and I am

COPYCAT KIDS?

14

like, ‘calm down’, whereas if they come in and watch something like Children’s BBC or Children’s ITV, they will just sit and watch it and then they just go off happily after it.” PARENTS

“Especially the 3-year-old, he likes adverts, because it is 30 seconds and that is it. He is not going to sit down and watch a video all the way through because it is probably too long.” PARENTS

“Television still influences me, so I certainly think it is going to influence them.” PARENTS

“I think television influences them an awful lot. A lot of the programmes are delivered in such a way that children believe in what they are seeing.” PARENTS

School staff considered influences on children’s behaviour to form a complex set of variables, which could interact, compound or drive each other, with the playground often acting as a ‘melting pot’. Impressionability was thought to vary by ‘type’ of child, on the basis of personality rather than social class. The immediate family was thought to be very influential on children and teenagers, and could instil basic skills of interaction and communication as well as the disposition towards co-operation: “For certain, initially I think it’s the parents …” SCHOOL STAFF

Siblings also set examples in terms of behaviour and attitudes, as well as activities, trends and interests. But, for children and teenagers of all ages, peers played a very important role in establishing boundaries and norms of behaviour and attitudes. They educated each other about language, for instance, and set trends, crazes, and fashions: “I’ve seen children’s behaviour change once they’ve gone from one group of friends to another … and it can go from being very pleasant, to someone turning completely …” SCHOOL STAFF

Television was spontaneously identified as having a key role, both directly as a source of ‘knowledge’ or driving actions and behaviour (WWF, Power Rangers): “Pressure comes from magazines or television or popular culture, doesn’t it? Once you’ve got that information there’s a pressure then to conform …” SCHOOL STAFF

“… Power Rangers first came out … In the playground the children that had watched that programme immediately were kicking each other and doing all the actions exactly the same and you could almost see their little personalities changing overnight – that had a very negative effect on the children.” SCHOOL STAFF

15

COPYCAT KIDS?

And indirectly in encouraging and normalising aggression and violence: “Television plays a big part because most of the children that come through to us are out in the streets or stuck in front of the television.” SOCIAL WORKERS/FOSTER PARENTS

“… there seems to be so much arguing and, you know, aggression and violence, and if these programmes are on when children are around … though they’re not actually watching it … they will be aware of what’s going on in the room and certainly will take in what’s on the television …” SCHOOL STAFF

Toys, merchandising or ‘themes’ considered disruptive were often banned from nursery or classroom in primary schools, examples including WWF and Power Rangers. Some thought football was a negative influence on the primary age group, because loyalty to one team bred antagonism and aggression towards others, and because it could encourage anti-social behaviour such as spitting and swearing. Sometimes pop icons exerted negative influence by overtly acknowledging their drug culture, as with Oasis and Robbie Williams: “Robbie Williams … he’s admitted that he’s taken drugs to excess … he’s OK, he’s got loads of money – what kind of message does that give?” SCHOOL STAFF

Those working with children considered parents to be an important influence, frequently the most important. Often, the nature of their work meant they were particularly alert to the existence of dysfunctional families. So parents could be an influence for good and ill, depending on their degree of involvement, depth of care or nurturing, and their own attitudes: “I think there are two types aren’t there? There’s the parent who just wants to dump the kids for a couple of hours … and they want the children out the way and the other ones, they really want their kids to get on in the social side of things and kids interacting with other kids.” LEISURE WORKERS

“You can get some really quite spoilt and nasty children who come from, you know, really well-off parents, but perhaps not given the time, so it’s not quite … not that they’re financially deprived … “The centre that I worked at, there was a handful of parents who showed the staff very little respect … and these children showed the same disrespect to the staff, not listening, talking back to them …” LEISURE WORKERS

Some thought other children could be as influential as parents, either through the peer group, where the desire was often to be ‘in’ with the crowd, to make and keep friends, or through older children who acted as role models for behaviour:

COPYCAT KIDS?

16

“Their peers, people who are their friends. I think that’s a big influence. I noticed like, especially the younger kids … well, from like reception through to about 5 or 6, they look up to the older kids, they do what they do and things like that.” LEISURE WORKERS

“If the older children are making noise or something like that, then the young kids will think that’s all right to do.” LEISURE WORKERS

“Pokémon and things they see that’s a new thing and so they think, ‘Right, well I can get in with this lot if I go and buy some cards.’” LEISURE WORKERS

Social workers and foster parents recognised their own influence as carers, but leisure workers had a debate about whether they themselves were role models. Some felt they were whereas others were doubtful due to their relatively short contact time with the children: “I’ve had a couple of children say to me, like if I’ve said to them, “Do you want to do anything”? They’ve said, “I want to do it with you” … I think they do, some of them really look up to you.” LEISURE WORKERS

“Depending on what the type of child is, there are some which you get to know and they come every week and you see them every week and there are people who just come once or twice and once you get to know them, it’s much easier.” LEISURE WORKERS

More ‘indirect’ influences, which were still important, included sports heroes, music and pop groups, magazines, computer games and videos. Virtually all these could have positive and/or negative effects in terms of children’s behaviour and attitudes. For example, music could be a calming influence but could also lead to aggression. And while magazines encouraged reading, they could include age-inappropriate content: “Music as well and the groups they tend to... based on me own grandchildren I've got granddaughters that think they're part of Steps … “They do all the movements and they model themselves don't they?” SOCIAL WORKERS/FOSTER PARENTS

“The phase at the moment is black rap, it's quite aggressive, quite violent … “Young people tune into it.” SOCIAL WORKERS/FOSTER PARENTS

“... videos, specially if it’s adult videos that they've seen, things they’re not supposed to be seeing … SOCIAL WORKERS/FOSTER PARENTS

17

COPYCAT KIDS?

“Playstation games … they crash the car and get out and walk away and also the strategy games where they actually make them think, so I think it’s a two-sided thing.” SOCIAL WORKERS/FOSTER PARENTS

“Magazines are a big thing because they've got sex all over, specially towards young girls … “It’s like car magazines and race bike magazines the boys want, you think a motor bike magazine, car magazine they'll be all right but they put in quite a lot of nudity.” SOCIAL WORKERS/FOSTER PARENTS

“And then Gazza punches women and you know the sort of picture that portrays for some of the youth of today.” SOCIAL WORKERS/FOSTER PARENTS

COPYCAT KIDS?

18

7 ATTITUDES TO TELEVISION CHILDREN AND TEENAGERS

Children considered television to be one of life’s necessities. Exposure to it was usually extensive – before school, after school, during homework, at weekends, with or without friends. Many had access to cable and satellite channels as well as terrestrial, plus videos, and there was little mention of supervision by parents. They enjoyed a variety of programmes for their entertainment value, including some which were educational (particularly documentaries or programmes featuring animals) and some which activated their imaginations, or were based in fantasy (often featuring witches). Teenage girls enjoyed the soaps, which were gossip fodder and seen as based on ‘real life’. Films were popular with older teenagers. Cartoons were very popular across the age range, particularly those considered ‘funny’. Humour was often identified as an essential ingredient in making programmes appealing. All ages enjoyed The Simpsons, and South Park was also mentioned (particularly by older boys, aged 13-15, but some much younger children enjoyed it too). The link between television and other activities was easy to identify. For younger children, it was apparent in merchandise, eg Tweenies, or in popular games, eg Pokémon, WWF play-fighting, copying challenges in the Generation Game (such as balancing jars on head), Gladiators re-enacted in the playground and football ‘moves’ copied. There was recognition that this could cause problems, with children citing instances of generating genuine fights as a result of injury from play fighting, and reports of WWF wrestling often being banned at home or in school.

ADULT PERCEPTIONS

Adults agreed that television played a significant role in children’s lives. The majority of children had access to a television set in their own bedroom as well as at least one family set. In many households, cable and satellite services were also available in communal areas, giving virtually 24-hour access to children’s programmes and cartoons: “A lot of them have got televisions in their bedrooms, so just because it’s away from the main living room it does not mean they’ve stopped watching … a lot of them have got remote controls, it’s just a quick flick isn’t it.” SCHOOL STAFF

Furthermore, teachers believed that television (rightly or wrongly) was one of today’s parenting tools, used as a baby sitter, entertainer or custodian as well as an educator through documentaries: “The mother … or the father or the au pair or the child minder will just put the child in front of it for a bit of peace and quiet.” SCHOOL STAFF

There was evidence of the influence of popular television in the interests and activities of primary schoolchildren, such as their dress codes and inspiration for play, which was encouraged by merchandising, eg Tweenies, Bug’s Life, Toy Story. Compared with other forms of media, television was seen as playing the most influential role in children’s lives.

19

COPYCAT KIDS?

Although it was believed to have a significant influence on children, people were unclear as to what this influence was – qualitatively and quantitatively. Even the ‘professionals’ knew of no conclusive research evidence, though one psychologist cited the effect of television depiction of self-harm on vulnerable individuals. They felt it likely that increased violence might be ‘fed’ by television, but again were not aware of any concrete evidence. Also, more subtly, in its underlying messages they saw television reinforcing cultural norms. It appeared to have a significant if unmeasurable effect, mainly creating or justifying behaviour and attitudes: “Television is always accessible. It’s easy.” LEISURE WORKERS

“… it is a role model isn’t it? They see and they gauge their own reactions against that, they fill their time with a lot of television, whatever they fill their time with is bound to have an effect on them.” LEISURE WORKERS

“Because it’s on television there’s this kind of implied assumption that if it’s on television it must be all right.” LEISURE WORKERS

Many parents expressed concern as to the amount of time children spent watching television. They described ‘responsible’ parents as those monitoring their children’s viewing times and practices and ‘bad’ parents as failing to control their habits. That said, however, most were resigned to the fact that their children often watched in their rooms (alone or with friends) without parental knowledge or consent. It was common for them to watch before and after school (up to 6pm), during weekends (especially Saturday mornings), while doing homework and until bedtime (anything up to 10.30pm). It was regarded as an inevitable part of life: “Well I can’t get my son away from the telly at the moment, he watches The Cartoon Network…and I try to get him out to football and he would rather sit.” PARENTS

The responsibility for regulating children’s exposure to television was seen as lying with parents, but the problem was that not all of them could or would take control. This difficulty, or inability, in controlling television consumption, exacerbated by televisions in bedrooms and access to videos, led to greater access and unaccompanied viewing: “So many now have their own television that the parents don’t censor what they watch in the same way.” SCHOOL STAFF

“I think quite often, it’s not that the parents can’t control (television watching), they don’t want to … “They can’t be bothered.” LEISURE WORKERS

COPYCAT KIDS?

20

“The viewing that a lot of children have is just totally indiscriminate and never explained and so therefore the images that come from them are just absorbed without discussion, without explanation.” SENIOR PROFESSIONALS

The adults showed some consistency in the programmes and advertising they spontaneously identified as negatively influencing children’s behaviour and moods. There was concern over output which encouraged antisocial behaviour such as bad language, fighting, spitting and premature awareness of ‘adult’ issues such as drug abuse, rape, domestic and other violence, teenage pregnancy and ‘deviant’ sexual behaviour. There was some spontaneous mention of ‘real life’ examples of children’s emulation of television programmes especially those that trivialised, glorified or glamorised violence and aggression, encouraging children to engage in ‘play’ fights that could often get out of control. Four examples featured across all groups: • Power Rangers (and its predecessor, Ninja Turtles) were both cited as programmes which had led to ‘play’ fighting and high-kicking: “I childmind a little boy and his parents have said he is not allowed to watch Power Rangers at my house … because it is really violent … and I have noticed 3 and 4 year olds, they watch Power Rangers and they actually act it out and it is really violent.” PARENTS

“It’s going back a couple of years. It was when Power Rangers was on. I noticed at the school where I work you see one child being picked on … It’s always the weaker one and he has five or six on him before you split them up.” PARENTS

“Power Rangers is a big influence especially on my 9 year old who is always fighting whether they want to or not, you know the drop kicks and … “I think it's been stopped at school now because the kids are getting hurt and they’ve banned it.” SOCIAL WORKERS/FOSTER PARENTS

“He just doesn’t understand that he can hurt people.” SOCIAL WORKERS/FOSTER PARENTS

• WWF glamorised violence with its ‘super-hero’ and ‘cartoon’ characters and costumes, and child-orientated merchandising (eg console games). It was blamed for encouraging fighting and instantaneous mood-swings among many boys: “My boys like to watch the wrestling on television and as soon as it is finished they just do it to each other all day long. I tell them it’s wrong but they have another little go and I say, ‘that’s it’, but they just keep doing it.” PARENTS

21

COPYCAT KIDS?

“There’s an alarming sort of fad in the school, they were imitating the wrestling, you know the world wrestling federation. I mean, although it’s pretend and they know it’s pretend, there was one day when they were attempting to slam each other on the floor … but there were one or two injuries to necks because the kids had been grabbed by the head and pulled without expecting it. We had to put a stop to that … the kids who were trying it didn’t mean any harm, they were copying something.” SCHOOL STAFF

• Despite its scheduling after the 9pm watershed, South Park had misled many parents as to its suitability with its child-friendly marketing and merchandising. It was felt to produce aggressive behaviour as children mimicked ‘killing Kenny’ and to have other inappropriate content: “I don’t like the swearing in it. It gives the wrong portrayal of life. Whether it’s a cartoon, sketch, whatever. Somebody is always killed.” PARENTS

“I think children should be children until there comes a time to explain these things to them. I don’t think it should be so blatantly portrayed to children.” PARENTS

“It’s the spin off things as well from those cartoons, the toys and the things, and South Park’s another one that's controversial.” SOCIAL WORKERS/FOSTER PARENTS

• Some reported overly boisterous behaviour and Bart Simpson mimicry as a result of watching The Simpsons, although most respondents were of the view that the sophisticated humour, working on two levels, and the moralistic mother figure, effectively tempered or excused this: “My good old dad, bless him, saved up some tokens from the Sun to get a free Simpsons video, and they are glued, both of them, and then I heard something like, ‘you are a bastard.’ PARENTS

“When he’s watching The Simpsons, he’ll copy things that Bart Simpson says, things like ‘eat my shorts’…and he’ll react to things that I’ve said to him by saying that back to me, and I think ‘cheeky wotsit’, you know.” PARENTS

“I quite enjoy The Simpsons, I never used to, I used to hate them, but they’re quite moralistic in a lot of ways aren’t they?” PARENTS

“I think they can learn things from it. Especially Marge, she will explain things and I think, that’s a good way of putting it.” PARENTS

COPYCAT KIDS?

22

Both South Park and WWF wrestling were seen as particularly impactful because they were often perceived as ‘family’ entertainment or children’s shows, but frequently contained inappropriate ‘adult’ material. Other examples of this included: • soap operas, especially Home and Away, EastEnders and Coronation Street, had disturbed younger viewers with their portrayal of controversial issues: “Probably some of the soaps like Home and Away and things like that. They think it’s real life and they want to compete.” PARENTS

• football coverage with swearing, spitting and taunting of authority figures by players and crowds: “He tends to go on about ‘hacks’, bad football tackles … you know when they’ve seen them on the telly perhaps they go in for sliding tackles and things like that.” PARENTS

• early news coverage with an overtly graphic portrayal of ‘upsetting’ events: “Sometimes, you do see it on the news, and I think they shouldn’t put so much violence, I notice the 6 o’clock news, the kids are still up … and you are sitting there and watching it and all of a sudden you see somebody getting shot or see dead bodies all over the place.” PARENTS

Other programmes were seen to play a role in eroding or shifting boundaries, and could condone inappropriate behaviour or attitudes, including normalising previously unacceptable language (examples including bastard, arse and fart as mentioned in the report): “I think a lot of youngsters watch so much television they’re not particularly critical about what they see … they’ll see these things that they wouldn’t normally come across in the street, and because it’s being presented on the television therefore it must be okay and so they may very well be taking more notice of it than they would otherwise.” SCHOOL STAFF

“It’s just changing what’s acceptable and what they see as being acceptable and if they’re exposed to this regularly across the board they are going to think it’s acceptable.” SCHOOL STAFF

Some parents and teachers also spontaneously mentioned the Tango Orange advertisement, which had led to play-fighting and ear-slapping. Although certain aspects of television were seen as having the potential to promote or reinforce negative behaviour and attitudes, some children’s programmes and advertising were felt to positively encourage constructive play and stimulate awareness and discussion of important issues. Examples given included Art Attack and the ‘Hedgehog’ road safety campaign, along with a range of others:

23

COPYCAT KIDS?

“You know when … Children in Need is on … I’ll say to them just sit and watch this … and my son said, ‘Well, why haven’t those children got water?’ and I’ll try and explain it, but I will say that I just want you to know that you are very lucky because some people aren’t as lucky as you.” PARENTS

“I’ve got one with cerebral palsy that actually verbalises to (Teletubbies) and he didn’t actually talk really, he tries.” SOCIAL WORKERS/FOSTER PARENTS

Leisure workers talked about some television programmes encouraging such desirable behaviour as good sportsmanship and care for animals: “The scout group had a swimming gala recently and it was nice to actually see all the children encouraging each other and saying, ‘Well done’ immediately after the races and saying, ‘You’ve done well’ and that was a sort of sense of team work. It wasn’t being engineered by the adults …” LEISURE WORKERS

As a group, social workers and foster parents were quite reluctant to consider ‘banning’ of television programmes (or advertisements), preferring to emphasise the importance of parental control. In view of their experience of ‘failing’ parents, this was perhaps surprising and even paradoxical. As with other professionals, there was an ongoing debate about the balance to be struck between protecting the vulnerable on the one hand and reasonable freedom of speech on the other: “… We always used to say, there's an on off button – that is parental control.” SOCIAL WORKERS/FOSTER PARENTS

“I think it’s all down to the parents.” SOCIAL WORKERS/FOSTER PARENTS

“I think that is really important, I mean other societies in the world fight for the freedom we have … I mean I'd hate my children not to be allowed to watch something because other parents haven’t the ability to parent.” SOCIAL WORKERS/FOSTER PARENTS

REACTIONS TO MIXED REEL

After the general discussion of youth culture, a video compilation of programme clips, music videos, computer game animation and commercials was used as stimulus material to focus the adult respondents’ discussion on the subject of possible emulation of television material. Some of the clips were either known to or thought to raise issues about emulation, others were more neutral or raised different concerns, such as taste and offence. The idea was to place emulation in the context of other televisual issues. Parents’ reactions to the mixed media reel were heavily dependent on the age of their children. Parents of secondary school age children were in general agreement that none of the clips would be likely to adversely influence their children, but those with primary schoolchildren thought that a number were, to some extent, irresponsible or potentially problematic. Those who worked with children held fairly similar views to parents, and areas of contention have been noted in the following pages.

COPYCAT KIDS?

24

The clips have been divided into three main categories: • significant concern: those deemed likely to negatively impact on children’s behaviour • mixed reactions: those less likely to have a direct influence on children’s behaviour • little or no concern: those least likely or unlikely to impact on children OVERVIEW – MIXED REEL Significant concerns

Some concern/mixed reactions

Little/no concern

Tumble Dryer South Park

Sooty Prodigy Carmageddon Stereophonics F’Art Attack

Jerry Springer Schweppes Wise Up 11 O’Clock Show

SIGNIFICANT CONCERN TUMBLE DRYER Extract from a children’s drama: a girl is seen emerging from a tumble dryer. Many parents of younger children thought this encouraged them to climb into tumble dryers or washing machines. Given the reported incidence of this dangerous practice among the young, this clip was considered extremely irresponsible and likely to impact on behaviour – since it made the idea seem ‘fun’: “That is the sort of thing they would definitely copy, they would think a great place to go.” PARENTS

Most other respondents agreed that this showed unacceptable behaviour that would be easy to copy, representing a real danger for smaller children and pets: “I can just see some children putting their baby sisters or brothers into the tumble dryer or their pets.” SCHOOL STAFF

This being a children’s programme shown during children’s peak viewing times, many were annoyed about the inappropriate nature of the content, and their worry was compounded by the knowledge of a real incident in the US. Among social workers and foster parents, it was the only clip in the reel to generate significant worries. Yet the group of senior professionals expressed little concern about it. There were one or two positive comments on the racial mix in the clip. SOUTH PARK

25

COPYCAT KIDS?

This episode of the post 9pm cartoon features two men tentatively exploring the possibility of masturbating in front of each other. Once they are sure they are both interested, one says “OK, I’ll start”.

This was spontaneously recognised as unsuitable for viewing by younger children, containing extremely ‘adult’ material and references. It was thought to have the potential to influence both behaviour and attitudes, trivialising violence and dysfunctional relationships through its anarchic and amoral tone and characters. It would be exciting yet disturbing for innocent younger viewers. It encouraged bad language and antisocial attitudes and behaviour through ‘acceptable’ humour. School staff worried that its repetitive nature made it particularly insidious: “South Park always follows the same format so it’s going to be more influential.” SCHOOL STAFF

These concerns were exacerbated by the related marketing activity and merchandising which seemed designed to appeal to children. It was known to be very popular with 13-14 year olds, but the content itself was considered less influential among younger children as it was often above their heads. However, primary schoolchildren found its cartoon format and the availability of related products appealing: “They come in with pencil cases of it and all sorts.” SCHOOL STAFF

“What time is South Park on? “10.30, 11 o’clock. To me the thing is, there’s a bit of a problem with South Park, as a television show, because South Park has been marketed with all the little gadgets … “The merchandising, the cuddly toys and all that business, so that actually encourages children to think it’s something for them. Normally, you know, the Toy Story and the Star Wars stuff, junk, is for them and this marketing is comparable to that, but it’s actually an adult show.” LEISURE WORKERS

South Park was considered inappropriate children’s viewing, but acceptable for more adult audiences. In theory, this should be covered by transmission time, and it should be up to parents to monitor their children’s viewing. The issue was whether in fact it could be controlled in this way. MIXED REACTIONS SOOTY

Children’s programme: Sooty experiments with a row of aromatherapy oils in little brown bottles. He tries one and becomes very relaxed; another makes him frantically active. The portrayal of well-loved children’s characters playing with substances in what looked like medicine bottles was considered extremely irresponsible by most parents and school staff, particularly primary teachers. For many, the fact that these messages were contained within a trusted children’s programme, scheduled during children’s peak viewing time, when programming was expected to be absolutely safe, made the clip doubly culpable. Parents of younger children said they were very careful to keep all medicines locked away and instructed their children that these were strictly out of bounds. This clip was thought to

COPYCAT KIDS?

26

encourage children to seek out and experiment with medicines or other potentially harmful substances, as well as undermining established parental rules about the dangers of medicines. Many parents thought it highly likely that their youngest children (under 4 years) could copy this behaviour: “It gives them the idea that you can smell something and it can have an effect on you, you know, do something to you so it is a bit dangerous really, irresponsible.” SCHOOL STAFF

“They’ve got all these different things in medicine bottles, you know, tablet bottles, that they would smell and I think some of the oils are very strong anyway and children copy … at that age they copy what is on television.” SCHOOL STAFF

For some, the clip contained more covert messages about encouraging the use of drugs – since certain oils were shown to speed Sooty up or slow him down. This was true among parents and in the senior professionals group, where some felt that the clip was unwise in its portrayal of mood alteration via sniffing and artificial means. In the leisure workers, social workers and foster parents groups in particular, several thought the storyline would be above the heads of the target audience and there was minimal likelihood of harm: “They were talking about aromatherapy, they wouldn’t know what they’re on about” LEISURE WORKERS

Some considered promotion of alternative therapy to be positive, despite doubts about its execution: “The Sooty thing was mentioning how essential oils and aromatherapy is a much better way, a much more natural way to solve things, but then it went totally the wrong way sort of thing …” SCHOOL STAFF

PRODIGY

Music video: This aggressive video for the single ‘Smack My Bitch Up’ is set in a night club and shows fighting, vandalism and unwilling women being groped. It was not shown on UK television before 10.30pm. This was seen by some as encouraging bad language and normalising aggression towards women. School staff and other professionals considered it unfit for broadcast, as it endorsed antisocial behaviour such as groping, swearing, drinking and aggression. However, it was assumed to be aimed at an adult audience rather than children as the music was unlikely to appeal to them. Therefore it would probably be scheduled very late, giving it limited impact. Those familiar with such videos considered it no worse than others in this market, while recognising that care was certainly needed in relation to the channel and timing of transmission (raising again that contradiction with their concern about the difficulty of policing children’s viewing). A minority thought that the video had been banned. All this made its direct influence on children difficult to gauge:

27

COPYCAT KIDS?

“I don’t think they’re targeting kids anyway …” SCHOOL STAFF

“The Prodigy video, ‘Smack my Bitch Up’, that … kids would not get to see that, that’s got about a 12 o’clock watershed, I think … I mean I’ve only ever seen it once or twice.” LEISURE WORKERS

CARMAGGEDON

Computer game: This was a compilation of typical action from the car racing video game which allows users to mow down animated pedestrians in showers of cartoon gore. The game is classified ‘18’ by the British Board of Film Classification. A minority of parents felt this glorified violence, but it was perceived as a relatively harmless game by many – with most children able to distinguish fantasy from reality. For several school staff, the issue raised was that children seemed to be spending too much time playing computer games and interacting with machinery in general, and they were less bothered about the specifics of the games being played (this example being seen as no worse than many others): “I worry about the amount of time some of them spend playing video games, but I don’t worry quite so much about the content, I think they can see it’s not real. Certainly, I’ve got children, I’ve got a boy of 16, and I don’t worry too much about what’s in the game, but more about the amount of time he spends playing it.” SCHOOL STAFF

There was some recognition that the labelling on such games would allow parents to make a judgement about its suitability before purchase: “That’s like an 18 certificate on it, games like that, so again, it’s down to the parents’ discretion, so I think that’s crucial …” LEISURE WORKERS

“As long as they’ve got an age range … they’ve usually got 15 or over.” SOCIAL WORKERS/FOSTER PARENTS

For some respondents, it was more problematic. Gratuitous violence was considered unsuitable for entertainment and many found this particular game distasteful, as it encouraged an attitude that ‘human life is cheap’: “That was grotesque …” SENIOR PROFESSIONALS

“I thought it was dreadful …” SENIOR PROFESSIONALS

COPYCAT KIDS?

28

There was a split between those who felt it was unlikely to result in direct effect on activity, and others who had concerns about a residual effect or a drip-feed influence on attitudes and behaviour. People had different opinions about whether the computer game format made it more or less likely to impact on behaviour than, for instance, a television programme: “I wonder sometimes, I know what you mean when you say there’s no direct influence, but I wonder sometimes whether there’s a sort of residue left.” SCHOOL STAFF

“… with a game it’s very solitary … and they’re in control of driving that thing… and because you don’t talk about it you just play it, where with telly you interact.” SOCIAL WORKERS/FOSTER PARENTS

“I don’t have too many concerns about television and what children see, because I think children watch it and see what it is but I do think with video games when you actually participate you have to do something active yourself to get the effect of the images you know … “And they’re also very specifically designed to be addictive, you have to get to the next level.” SENIOR PROFESSIONALS

STEREOPHONICS

Advertisement for CD by the group Stereophonics: fans are urged to ‘get off your arse and buy’ the record. A clip from the band’s video shows them trapped in a car sinking in a lake. Someone is seen scrawling ‘help’ in a misted-up window but eventually they swim free. Some respondents thought this normalised, and thus encouraged, swearing among younger children: “When it said, ‘don’t just sit on your arse, get up and buy it’ … it’s not a term I want my boys to learn.” PARENTS

“The language was totally over the top, just not necessary.” LEISURE WORKERS

Others were of the view that the word used was relatively inoffensive and most children hear ‘much worse in the playground’: “It’s teenage talk isn’t it, ‘blinding’ and ‘arse’.” PARENTS

There was a perception that boundaries have moved: “Some ten, twenty years ago it was just not acceptable, it just seems to have slowly become more and more …” SCHOOL STAFF

Most of the professionals felt it was acceptable in the context of the target market, although one found the ‘drowning’ imagery disturbing.

29

COPYCAT KIDS?

When children were asked about this advertisement, it was neither familiar nor liked. Most found it boring – the music was not to their taste and the format lacked interest. A few noticed the language, which was thought to be included to catch attention. It was an unusual device but nothing shocking, and was considered unlikely to instigate emulation. F’ART ATTACK

This parody of the popular children’s programme Art Attack was an item on the popular children’s entertainment show SM:TV LIVE. It features the presenter breaking wind and a number of farting jokes. This elicited polarised responses. Some considered it trivialised the well-liked and positive original programme, and belittled constructive play for those younger children who were most easily led: “I didn’t like it because it was making a send up of what was a decent programme. It’s a very good programme and if they see a send up version of that, they would be more influenced by that than the original one.” PARENTS

A minority claimed to be ‘shocked’, and felt that it would encourage ‘testing out’ behaviour as the noises would be easy to copy and it invited emulation, especially by younger children: “But I don’t think it was right …We try to get them to stop saying that sort of thing and there they are putting it on telly saying it’s OK … and he would be re-enacting that.” PARENTS

“I was shocked by the F’Art Attack, I think. I thought that was a joke … that is real? That is on CITV then?” LEISURE WORKERS

“It’s just absolutely vile.” LEISURE WORKERS

Several were concerned that it would be imitated in inappropriate circumstances and surroundings: “I think the problem with that and lots of things like that is that, yes, they do find it funny and in the playground where they have all these sorts of jokes, but the problem is, what’s funny in the playground and what’s acceptable in general company, family and friends … “What I would say is, you know, ‘Those sort of things you can talk about in the playground, but don’t talk about those things at home’.” LEISURE WORKERS

“I thought the F’Art Attack one was interesting because of how I responded to it, I mean I think it’s all good fun but I just wonder about parents or families knowing that their children are watching it, it’s almost like television breaking taboos on behalf of families and I would imagine that children would love that, parents perhaps certainly would be cringing at it …

COPYCAT KIDS?

30

“You see if parents accept that, for their kids to watch that, then they are presumably going to accept the same behaviour when they’re in school and we don’t stand for that, and that’s where you get conflict.” SENIOR PROFESSIONALS

Others felt that it was acceptable juvenile toilet humour. It was based on a subject that children find funny anyway and would not be damaging in any way, just harmless fun: “They would be in hysterics wouldn’t they?” PARENTS

“That’s silly … Kids like that … “Cos universally I think, every child laughs at farts don’t they?” LEISURE WORKERS

“I don’t think that there are many kids that don’t indulge in toilet humour themselves.” SENIOR PROFESSIONALS

LITTLE OR NO CONCERN JERRY SPRINGER

Episode of the confessional show entitled My Teen Worships Satan featuring an argument between a mother and her Satanist son. This show was generally considered to be ‘obnoxious’, but too ridiculous to take seriously. However, some considered it set a bad example as it encouraged confrontation and celebration of ‘tabloid’ issues: “It’s the way that people interact with each other on that programme … every time it’s a shouting match between people, they have never found a way of talking to each other that was reasonable, you know, sorted out a conflict or anything like this, it was all kind of confrontational …” SCHOOL STAFF

“The audience often encourage them to confront and fight.” SCHOOL STAFF

There was an awareness that it was regulated by the watershed, so the time of broadcast of ‘adult’ versions might restrict viewing by children. But, as with South Park, there was a question mark over whether they would actually be prevented from watching its night time transmissions. SCHWEPPES

An adventure-style commercial, this shows a cool-looking diamond miner and his attractive female accomplice getting away with the theft of a diamond by using a clever trick. This advertising raised no issues for most respondents and attracted little comment. It was perceived as simply using sexy bodies to sell drinks, and although some picked up on the ‘theft is cool’ theme, it was not a major problem.

31

COPYCAT KIDS?

WISE UP

Children’s current affairs show: two girls comment on ‘sexist builders’ and object to comments like ‘Get your tits out’. This was considered acceptable as a teenage current affairs show, and could have a beneficial effect in terms of raising topics with young viewers. The issue being tackled, sexism, was a real and pertinent one. A couple of respondents were unhappy with the language, but most found it acceptable especially as it was being used for illustration and came from a ‘third party’. Some of the senior professionals criticised it as ‘tabloid television’ but had no strong concerns.

11 O’CLOCK SHOW

In a parody news item before a soccer international, a presenter on this late evening comedy show says ‘As the build-up to the big match continues, the Scottish team are in training for what’s going to happen to them on Wednesday night.’ There is then a cut to footage of the team lying on their backs doing stretching exercises which involve them spreading their legs wide and the presenter adds “Even they know they’re going to get fucked.” While The 11 O’Clock Show might be seen by teenagers, the adult focus and time of broadcast was considered to diminish exposure or interest to younger children. It was considered broadly acceptable for late transmission times.

COPYCAT KIDS?

32

8 ATTITUDES TO TELEVISION ADVERTISING CHILDREN AND TEENAGERS

The younger children (aged 9-11) were very vague in their recall of current television advertising. The examples they came up with were often unbranded, with the recall attached to the ‘story’ or characters instead, eg Honey Monster (Sugar Puffs), cartoon elephant (Charmin toilet roll). Older children (aged 12-16) recalled advertising they enjoyed or disliked. The appeal often related to the ‘storyline’, characters featured or the product. For instance, they mentioned Rolo (elephant never forgets), Tesco (ridiculous and embarrassing granny), Budweiser (animals), Fiat Punto (girl kisses stranger to teach boyfriend a lesson) as well as KitKat, Argos (toys), and McDonald’s. Humour was considered a key ingredient to a ‘good advert’. An element of harm could make it all the funnier, with respondents citing Pot Noodle (parrot bites), Levi (hamster dies) and Rolo. But they understood that these were stunts as opposed to reality, and all part of the joke. However, there was evidence that things shown to raise a laugh might be copied to impress friends. One teenage boy cited the possibility of following a person down the street laughing and stopping when they turn around to create confusion, which was based on an unnamed advertisement. There was spontaneous identification of instances where advertising had been directly copied (by themselves or others). The most current (and surprisingly widespread) was testing kitchen roll to see if the claim of the Bounty advertisement (see below) was true. Generally, this was not repeated with hot coffee (as shown in the commercial) but by using glasses, glass jars, etc. It had been tried by children and adults. Furthermore, the children claimed that slapping other children, as in the 1992 Tango Orange advertisement, still happened at school, although less frequently than in the past. They also spoke of copying the voices of Budweiser animal characters and there were some claims of imitating moves shown in advertising for kung-fu based computer games (unspecified).

ADULT PERCEPTIONS

As with television in general, the adults believed that television advertising ‘must have an effect’, but had relatively few examples to offer. They identified three main ways in which television advertising seemed to influence children: pester power; direct copying of behaviour seen in advertisements; and a subliminal or very gradual effect on attitudes through communication of (often antisocial) ideas or cultural norms. Many parents felt that advertising had the power to make a significant impression on their children, and there were widespread reports of children mimicking characters, jingles and taglines from a plethora of campaigns. Those featuring children, cartoon characters, animals, ‘catchy’ tunes and phrases, colour, dynamic special effects, aspirational celebrity heroes, humour and children’s products (eg confectionery, cereals and toys) were most likely to be referred to: “There is one about a car … this car is speeding and … when we are in the car it is, ‘Dad, go faster, go faster than that car’!” PARENTS

“Well, if it’s repetitive … like a song, they’ll learn a song and sing the song over and over.” PARENTS

33

COPYCAT KIDS?

“Children like fast moving things … if it’s colourful their ears prick up and they watch it …” SCHOOL STAFF

The exploitative power of advertising, using psychology to create desires and aspirations in children, was a main concern for the senior professionals. Parents and school staff talked about the negative effects during the pre-Christmas marketing period, particularly among younger children. Advertising of ‘must have’ toys (from September onwards) might educate children in their capacity as consumers but also encouraged ‘pester power’, greed and competition between siblings and peers: “There is definitely a case of the ‘I wants’ though … especially at Christmas time … when they are doing all the ads for the toys.” PARENTS

“It makes them aware of what’s available – I want this, I want that …” SCHOOL STAFF

“I think it’s like keeping up with the Jones’s, you know, what his mate got he wants … if he can do it, I can do it better.” PARENTS

Unprompted, the only advertisement identified as having an irresponsible effect on children was Tango Orange, which school staff in particular remembered resulted in children slapping each other in playground: “It was years ago, when that advert came out, Tango … and they were going round hitting you. They didn’t really mean it … but they could have actually done quite a lot of harm.” SCHOOL STAFF

“They thought it was joke, just something they had seen and they just thought it was a funny thing to do.” SCHOOL STAFF

Apart from this, respondents were unable spontaneously to think of any specific examples of advertising that had influenced children’s behaviour or views, though it was perceived as contributing significantly to irritating behaviour, such as hyperactivity, over-excitement and lack of concentration: “I couldn’t measure it you know, I couldn’t say ‘yes, they have been influenced by this advert’, I couldn’t pin one.” SCHOOL STAFF

“I think it’s a sort of drip feed effect isn’t it, it’s not just one advert it’s a constant bombardment of them.” SCHOOL STAFF

Certain elements were thought to make an advertisement more impactful, including humour (which would make it more appealing and accessible) and the inclusion of a relevant celebrity or role model. Some thought a cartoon format may be less influential than live action:

COPYCAT KIDS?

34

“If there’s an element of humour in it, then they won’t take it seriously, cos they think it’s all right to do just for a laugh. The more serious ones, I don’t know if they take in, understand …” LEISURE WORKERS

“I think there’s a distinction between, if you like, you know real life violence and cartoon violence.” LEISURE WORKERS

Older children in particular were believed to have quite a sophisticated relationship with advertising, which they could find entertaining in its own right. They understood its role in informing consumers, and analysed advertisements as part of the school curriculum: “… as the National Curriculum was evolved, one of the things we had to do with all ages is to look at adverts and deconstruct them …” SCHOOL STAFF

There was some debate as to the relative influence of advertisements vis-à-vis programmes and other influences. Television programmes were longer but needed more attention span and were ‘one-off’. Although advertisements were so much shorter, they were impactful and repeated, leading to a suspicion that they may be more influential: “‘Programmes have more influence’ cos they don’t pay as much attention to (advertising) … they’re not watching the adverts, they’re watching the programmes and the adverts just happen to be on …” LEISURE WORKERS

“Well my kids certainly do know that adverts are there to try and sell you something whereas the programmes they take as gospel, they believe that.” PARENTS

“I think adverts, because they are actually geared towards getting in their brains, basically, aren’t they?” PARENTS

“I’m wondering if that’s part of child psychology because children like stories over and over again and recurrent imagery like that could be very powerful.” SENIOR PROFESSIONALS

“Adverts are so short that they have to get a message across in such a short space of time.” SENIOR PROFESSIONALS

There was some feeling among professionals that television and advertising would have a much smaller effect than parental influence, but at the same time, the decreasing influence of parents meant more scope for television. School staff saw it as one of many (mainly negative) influences contributing to general cultural changes, including the rise of consumerism, greater awareness of individual rights and choice, and a willingness to challenge authority.

35

COPYCAT KIDS?

REACTIONS TO ADVERTISING REEL

Respondents were shown a reel of advertisements, some of which had provoked complaints, others which raised concerns but were less problematic. The children and teenagers (whose sessions were shorter) did not see the full range of material. On exposure to the advertising stimulus, certain advertisements clearly emerged as having actually influenced behaviour, or else were recognised as having the potential to do so. Parents’ reactions to the advertising reel were dependent on the age of their child(ren) with views on perceived impact split according to whether the child was of primary or secondary age. Ultimately, however, for the bulk of parents in the sample, most advertising was seen as harmless especially when compared to the other external social influences to which children are routinely exposed: “I think you’ve got to give kids more credit than that … he wouldn’t fall for any of that, my boy.” PARENTS

“Why think that kids can’t see the funny side of things and not have to go out and do the same things as they see on the box? They aren’t robots that go out and do everything that is on tv … They can laugh at things the same way as we can.” PARENTS

Again, the advertisements have been divided into three categories depending on whether they caused significant concern, mixed reactions or little or no concern. Two advertisements which had never been shown on UK television were shown only in the pilot groups. They were not used in the main fieldwork because they were so clearly considered unacceptable and respondents thought it highly unlikely that either advertisement would appear on mainstream television. The researchers found they distorted the discussion, but for completeness they are summarised here. DAZED AND CONFUSED MAGAZINE

Cinema advertisement, never broadcast on UK television: a young man lays out a line of cocaine on the magazine’s cover then brushes it away so he can read the magazine which looks even more interesting than the drug. This was condemned as totally inappropriate for screening, as it not only normalised taking drugs in a social environment, it actually educated and demonstrated how to take them.

PEPE JEANS

Rejected for UK broadcast: though edited to try to disguise the fact, this clearly indicates a teenage boy riding in a laundrette tumble dryer. He also talks about the disorientation which results. This contained a wealth of negative images which were unacceptable, although the general confusion and unattractiveness of the images were expected to diminish the likelihood of engaging children’s interest.

COPYCAT KIDS?

36

OVERVIEW – ADVERTISING REEL Significant concerns

Some concern/mixed reactions

Little/no concern

Tango Orange Bounty kitchen roll ITV promotion

Dulux paint MSN (Microsoft) Tango Blackcurrant Dairylea? Twix?

McDonalds Safeway Ovaltine Power Scalextric Walkers Crisps Eurostar

SIGNIFICANT CONCERN TANGO ORANGE

As a youth takes a sip of Tango, a strange, partly-naked man with all-over orange make-up rushes up and slaps him simultaneously on both cheeks. His shock is supposed to illustrate the sharp bite of the drink. (The ITC received reports of playground emulation and cases of burst eardrums as a result.) Most children found this familiar and appealing. They liked the product and thought the treatment was funny and entertaining, especially the slapping and the expression of the slapped man. It reflected how they played around or mucked about in this fashion, surprising each other to get reactions. They imagined that other children would be quite likely to copy the behaviour, though generally projected this on to an age-group slightly younger than themselves (so from around 3 up to 9 years old). Some of the youngest respondents failed to understand it, asking why he was being slapped; who was the orange man; why he had no clothes. Most of the adult respondents recognised the danger that this advertisement would encourage imitation, mainly because it was so easy to copy and it would appeal to a child’s sense of mischief and experimentation. This was heightened by featuring a funny, cartoon-style character. Several parents had experienced their younger children slapping their friends. Others could envisage it happening: “The Tango Orange, it gives me the creeps that one… but I think it’s very influential because I can see him going up and going like that. Didn’t they ban one of them because they were going like that at school?” PARENTS

It raised alarm bells even among those respondents who were unaware of the original controversy or cases of actual emulation. They recognised it as action easy to imitate, and even potential bully fodder. Its alliance to a soft drink (a children’s product) further condoned slapping as acceptable behaviour: “That Tango one with the smack on the face, I can imagine that being something that is imitated violently quite easily.” PARENTS

“It gives the message that it’s OK to do that …” PARENTS

The leisure workers also had actual examples from their personal experience of children copying the actions. Despite their own appreciation of the advertisement in some cases, it was generally agreed to be dangerous:

37

COPYCAT KIDS?

“It didn’t occur to me when I first saw it, I thought, ‘That’s a great advert, it’s brilliant’” LEISURE WORKERS

“It seems to strike a chord with a certain age group … and that’s made it become a problem … “And you always get the bullying element as well. People take it just that stage too far.” LEISURE WORKERS

In a few cases, there was a feeling that the ban had been an over-reaction, as shown by this exchange: “I remember when my lads were teenagers and they went around slapping each other’s faces … “They changed it after that didn’t they? “It was over-reacting, they didn't need to.” SOCIAL WORKERS/FOSTER PARENTS

BOUNTY KITCHEN ROLL

A low key dubbed foreign commercial which shows a salesman demonstrating the strength of the kitchen roll to a customer by supporting a pot of coffee on a sheet without it tearing. A sheet of Bounty tissue is also tested against another brand by being rubbed on a cooker hot-plate. Surprisingly, this was the most familiar of all the advertisements shown to the children despite being a product of no interest to them. They remembered the jingle, demonstrations, cheesy acting and poor dubbing. The formula invited all ages to try to repeat it, and there were many claims of having tested it at home – mostly unsuccessfully. Some children, particularly older ones, recognised that it could be dangerous to copy it exactly as shown, as the glass and hot liquid might cause injury. Many adult respondents feared unfortunate consequences from copying such a dangerous challenge: “Particularly with the younger children, you actually teach them not to touch, and they are showing it on the telly – just wipe it clean – and my little 3 year old, he would do just that.” PARENTS

“They are teaching them the wrong thing. The one about Bounty kitchen roll I can imagine a child getting hot liquid and seeing if it was going to break or not when wiping it up.” PARENTS

Some, however, thought it was a poor advertisement and might be too boring to be noticed by children, and one group was surprised when a participant reported direct emulation by her young daughter.

COPYCAT KIDS?

38

The implied sexism was an additional issue for one or two (outweighing safety concerns in the professionals’ group): “… it’s really trying to say that it’s the woman on tv cleaning things up.” LEISURE WORKERS

ITV PROMOTION

This programme promotion parodies Gladiators (which is popular with children) showing two of the gladiators racing and fighting their way through a house. The action includes two scenes of swinging Tarzan-style from ceiling pendant lights. Parents had significant misgivings about this clip. They saw the activities shown as appealing to children’s sense of mischief and experimentation, and could imagine them leaping off banisters and swinging on lamp-fittings. By featuring celebrity heroes, the aspirational appeal was almost guaranteed among a younger audience, and the home setting made it easy to copy: “It’s bad enough to stop her from climbing over things, and if they see something like that ...” PARENTS

“He has re-enacted this advert … ‘come on’, he says ‘because you can do it with me’ … Like an assault course type of thing.” PARENTS

“Pretty hypocritical as well, cos at the start of every Gladiators they say, ‘Don’t try this at home, they’ve all got experience’ and then doing that … “Cos I mean they’re sitting there, they’re at home, they can do it. They can easily just … you know, try and swing from the light … it’s so easy for them to do.” LEISURE WORKERS

School staff had more mixed reactions to the promotion. They were familiar with the ‘playing’ of gladiators both in the playground and at home. They found it irritating but were less concerned than parents about the potential for harm. The activities shown were very exaggerated, and it showed competition between two equal parties as opposed to an interaction of one-upmanship. But they did feel some level of discomfort about it encouraging boisterous behaviour and the potential to copy the swinging from electrical fittings. Although many of the other adults agreed that the behaviour in the promotion was liable to be emulated, others countered that it was clearly meant to be ‘harmless fun’ and not to be copied: “I thought it was quite funny … “Children think the furniture isn't for sitting on, it’s for playing on and jumping around on and climbing all over.” SOCIAL WORKERS/FOSTER PARENTS

39

COPYCAT KIDS?

MIXED REACTIONS DULUX PAINT A woman seems fascinated by a man wearing a yellow jacket. She follows him on to a bus, sitting behind him. He is vaguely aware of her and a little uneasy. When he gets off the bus, a square of yellow material has been cut from the back of his jacket. At home, the woman has clearly used the colour of the material to find the perfect yellow for her walls. (The ITC received reports that children had copied this action and damaged complainants’ clothes.) There was some awareness of this advertisement amongst older children (12-16), with the key reminder being the hole in the hood. Most of them thought it was funny, because although the man was suspicious of the woman he was unaware of what she was doing and she got away with it. For the younger age group (up to 11), it tended to be very boring or a bit confusing. There was a recognition that it could give children ideas and that pranks to impress friends or raise a laugh were a common occurrence. Some felt that it would be even more influential if it actually demonstrated the act of cutting rather than only showing the results. Adult opinion was divided as to the potential impact of this advertisement. Although it contained mischievous behaviour and the bus represented an accessible, everyday scenario, few could genuinely imagine emulation would occur. Parents generally thought it unlikely that any but the naughtiest of children would behave in this manner. However, some school staff considered it irresponsible, placing bad behaviour and ideas in a humorous light. But, whilst it showed an adult damaging someone else’s property, others thought that the lack of music or other child values would render the advertisement too boring to be noticed. A number thought it was an amusing, clever and memorable advertisement: “I think you can have opinions about it other than we’re all going to rush out and cut each other's rain coats about, do you know what I mean?” SOCIAL WORKERS/FOSTER PARENTS

MSN (MICROSOFT)

Within a live action commercial a rather loveable but sad-looking animated earthworm (with eyes and a cute voice) is accidentally cut in two by a gardener. However, as a result, he becomes two worms, the second half being a female. The original face looks much happier. There was some recall among children of the worm characters in this advertisement, but the brand and the point of the advertising was often missed. It tended to invite sympathy and confusion, with children asking what was happening, and why chop a worm in half? Some were unaware of the (false) folklore about worms, and failed to understand why there was one worm then two. However, for many, the worm characters proved very engaging with their cute, funny faces. The quivering innards raised disgust but invited attention. It was common for children to play with insects and creepy crawlies and there was some concern that ‘little kids’ (age 3-4) might be encouraged to chop up

COPYCAT KIDS?

40

worms – to see if one really could make two, to see if chopping a worm ‘makes it dance’ and to see if the insides looked like those shown (no blood). Few parents were of the view that the behaviour would be copied, although a minority thought it was potentially upsetting for the youngest children (under 4 years). Feelings were stronger in the leisure workers group, where it was generally felt to encourage or condone cruelty to animals and the mitigating feature of ‘accidental damage’ was insufficient to justify it: “That was gross …” LEISURE WORKERS

“Yeah, it teaches kids to do that … “Convinced that they’ll grow into two worms but they don’t!” LEISURE WORKERS

“That made me gasp … “I mean the poor look in that worms face when he gets cut up …” LEISURE WORKERS

TANGO BLACKCURRANT

A Tango executive responds to a French exchange student’s mild complaint that he doesn’t like Blackcurrant Tango as much as the orange version. The response develops from mildly ironic, through sarcastic to a full-blown anti-French rant culminating with the man standing in a boxing ring on the white cliffs of Dover challenging France, Europe and the world to take him on while a flight of fighter planes roars overhead. Only a minority of children claimed to be aware of this advertisement. Some elements were appealing – the high production values (planes, lots of people, music, special effects), and some younger boys (aged 10/11) identified with the sentiment of fighting or challenging those who disagree with you. But overall, most had limited engagement with it. They felt no empathy for the main character ‘Ray Gardner’ (the office environment did not appeal and he was described as a “disgusting man”). The storyline was based on aggression, and was not seen as humorous or funny. Older teenagers also picked up on the racism. For younger respondents, it was too long and boring. Several adults considered the advertisement too long-winded and subtle in humour to engage a child’s attention sufficiently to identify or even understand the ‘subversive’ messages it contained: “… Stupid … “I don’t think they’d understand that … “No and it was just boring … “I think it went on too long as well …” LEISURE WORKERS

41

COPYCAT KIDS?

Few parents were able to identify the potential issues of concern but many of the school staff and other professionals found it more problematic. They thought it set a bad example on two counts: xenophobia and aggression (fight those who disagree with you). One or two thought it was sexist. None of these were attitudes they would wish to foster in children, and they likened the tone to the tabloid press. Children might be unlikely to actively imitate what was shown, but it provided a subtle reinforcement of negative attitudes: “It’s saying, you know, hitting people is OK.” LEISURE WORKERS

“The Tango blackcurrant one, I found it really took it to the extreme particularly with violence … taste is such a subjective thing so therefore I’m going to beat you up because you’ve got a different view to me. Again, I didn’t like the imagery of that, big man, big company, so you’ve got a different opinion, didn’t like that at all … “I found the xenophobia of that quite difficult actually. The Tango one showed the female role was to follow on behind and I thought that was bad.” SENIOR PROFESSIONALS

DAIRYLEA

Set in a garden in the summer, this shows children playing boisterously and rewarding each other with Dairylea triangles for doing things like soaking an older sister who is sunbathing in a bikini or pulling off someone’s trunks while they are swimming. This was a familiar advertisement that proved very popular across the sample of children. The appeal was often related to identification with characters and scenes – it showed children having fun, realistic pranks and funny events that would get a laugh. The production values were also appreciated, with catchy music, bright colours, plenty going on and good acting involving lots of children. They thought it would give children ideas for fun in the sun, in particular the ideas of spraying your sister and stealing shorts while underwater. These were all seen as harmless acts that the children would probably do anyway. Most of the adults found the advertisement generally acceptable due to its ‘light touch’, and it was simply illustrating typical children’s behaviour. A few respondents, particularly among those working with children, picked up on the implications of bullying and the professionals saw it as exploitative of children’s desire for peer acceptability. One or two were uneasy about the sexual implications of the girl in the bikini: “I think that’s a little bit deeper than it makes out, the kids can do anything for a triangle … “And there’s a sense of bullying wasn’t there? “... implied threat of ‘Where is it? I want that cheese from you …’ “I think from a children’s point of view, it’s not a bad ad.” LEISURE WORKERS

COPYCAT KIDS?

42

TWIX Within a colour commercial, a dull and ultra-cautious man called Norm is presented in black and white. He is boring and, as part of his ‘nerd’ outfit, is wearing a cycle safety helmet. A few adult respondents had concerns that this advertisement stigmatised people (and by implication, children) who were unattractive or ‘nerdy’, and that it reinforced stereotypes of people who were bullied. However, it was seldom spontaneously criticised. No one mentioned any concern that the nerdy image might discourage the use of cycle safety gear. LITTLE OR NO CONCERN McDONALD’S A black and white commercial featuring the footballer Alan Shearer. Taking a look round his home town of Newcastle, he mentions that he wasn’t much interested in school – saying his real education was while playing for a local club. This advertisement was familiar to many children through recognition of the popular football star. However, the execution was generally unappealing being described as boring because it was black and white, drab, very long and slow. Older teenagers picked up on the slur on education, but considered it acceptable as Alan Shearer was already a proven success, though not academically. Parents and many of the other adults recognised that it was a long-winded treatment unlikely to appeal to children, and few were concerned about its influence: “I think by the time they actually … you know, ‘I wasn’t much interested at school’ they would have turned it over, cos it was so boring …’” LEISURE WORKERS

But some, in the leisure workers group in particular, were worried about the implied denigration of school and felt it encouraged anti-school attitudes, especially as a celebrity was involved: “The MacDonald’s one where you’re having Shearer saying, ‘I wasn’t much interested at school’, you know, he’s basically promoting that if you want to be a footballer, just forget about school … “Alan Shearer says it’s all right not bothering to go to school ... and I’m going to be a football star …” LEISURE WORKERS

On the positive side, a few felt it highlighted ‘success from humble beginnings’ and gave out positive messages about ‘real life’ : “I just saw that in a different light. I thought, ‘Just because you don’t do well at school doesn’t mean that you’re not going to do …’” LEISURE WORKERS

“… he wasn’t that bright at school, so the fact that he still made it in the world … ” LEISURE WORKERS

43

COPYCAT KIDS?

SAFEWAY

A toddler cuts grapes from a bunch with toy scissors and eats them by holding his head back and dropping them into his mouth. He also cuts a hole in a bag of pasta and wanders off with pasta cascading out behind him. This was predominantly thought to be harmless. There was a perception that those of an age likely to identify with the child were too young to pay sufficient attention to the advertisement, which additionally was for a boring product and had no entertainment value: “A 3-year-old isn’t going to recognise that.” SCHOOL STAFF

Several pointed out that the child was using safety scissors, although one of the senior professionals commented that the child shown was too young to be safe using even these unsupervised. A few adults picked up the concern that copying eating grapes in that way might result in choking, but most overlooked this aspect. OVALTINE POWER

A boy sits, on detention, in a classroom with a male teacher. When released, the boy picks up a model car from the teacher’s desk, turns it upside down and makes it spin. He then leaves the room swigging from a bottle of Ovaltine Power. Outside, the teacher is stunned to find that his own car is slowly spinning on its roof in the car park. The boy’s eyes glow supernaturally. Some children were familiar with this advertisement and there were mixed reactions in terms of appeal. Some elements were liked, including the school scene, the revenge on the horrid teacher, the use of imagination, intrigue and fantasy, and the high-tech filming (the spinning car). Other elements were drab and boring – it had no catchy music and, because of technical problems, the copy used in the research was in black and white. It was often recognised that the child was not actually offensive to the teacher at any point, and the retribution was via fantasy rather than reality. Some of the adults were concerned about the anti-school and anti-authority attitudes shown in the advertisement, though to most (including the school staff) it was not an issue. Many felt it was unlikely to have a direct influence, especially as children could not achieve what was shown in the advertisement: “It was voodoo wasn’t it? “It’s trying to imply a lack of respect you know? Revenge, violence type of thing ... “It wouldn’t have that much effect … “It’s just a boring milk drink.” LEISURE WORKERS

COPYCAT KIDS?

44

SCALEXTRIC

In a maternity ward, a new father is seen holding a baby boy and enthusing about the prospect of having Scalextric racing cars to play with. His bubble is burst when a nurse tells him to give that baby back to its family and pay attention to his own new baby daughter. Few made many comments about this advertisement. Some respondents identified the element of sexism, but it was thought to be largely inoffensive and uninteresting to children. There were a few professionals for whom the risk of endorsing sexism remained an issue, even though they realised it was being joked about.

WALKERS CRISPS

This black and white commercial shows the footballer Stanley Matthews stealing a pack of crisps from a little boy and going off with them. The boy follows, trying to get the crisps back. Very few adults could identify issues of concern, and while there was minority recognition that the Walkers advertisements could be seen to condone stealing, parents did not believe they would actually encourage this behaviour. There was minority criticism that the featured role model (Stanley Matthews) was setting a bad example, but overall they considered that children and teenagers would understand the context of the joke: “I did wonder about Stanley Matthews, whether the children would have ever heard of him … It appeals to the older generation.” PARENTS

“He (son) doesn’t really like things in black and white, he’s very visual, he likes bright colours, he’d switch off if he saw that particular one.” PARENTS

EUROSTAR

This simple animation shows, as incidental action, a boy and girl taking food from a passing waiter’s tray without him noticing. Respondents did not identify any issues of concern in this advertisement.

45

COPYCAT KIDS?

9 ITC/REGULATORY ISSUES Adult respondents were asked about the independent regulation of television advertising. The majority agreed that this was desirable, because children were impressionable, parents were not always responsible and even responsible parents had increasing difficulty monitoring what their children watched: “The problem with the watershed, it all depends on when your children go to bed and you know, my experience of children, they go to bed from you know, 8 years old from sort of 8 o’clock through to 10 o’clock at night, you know? And it’s also further compromised by video recorders … “I was going to say, at the end of the day, I think it’s down to the parents, cos they have to lay down the law in the house as to what their kids are going to see. You know, when I was a kid, if I wanted to watch anything that my mum and dad had heard might not be suitable or something, they wouldn’t let me watch it and that was the end of the conversation, that would be it … “Unfortunately, we know that there are parents out there that are quite happy to leave their kids in their rooms with their video games and they really don’t know what they’re watching and if they’ve got internet as well, then they’ve got access to all sorts of stuff and how much control do they actually have over that?” LEISURE WORKERS

For many parents, the existence of a body with the protection of consumer interests as its remit was a reassuring notion. They identified the potential for impact as far greater among younger children (primary school age and below) and those without a sufficient level of family guidance and support available to them: “There are certain people who have different standards to other people, … they don’t seem to have any standards at all … moral standards and attitudes …(their children) have still got all the bad influences like television programmes, but they’ve got nobody saying, ‘it’s a television programme, you don’t bring it home, you know this is how we behave, we don’t behave like that in our family’.” PARENTS

“Not with my child, but I can see other children who perhaps don’t have the … I don’t know whether it’s respect for their parents or whether parents don’t have respect for the children in influencing them or telling them right from wrong, but I know several children in my son’s class who would take that to the limit and beyond, slapping people around the head.” PARENTS

There was an awareness of the need to balance minority and majority concerns, and the importance of preserving free speech. A compromise had to be found between protection of the vulnerable and the freedom to produce creative television. Some were uneasy about legislating for the weakest members of society and the worst parents. They felt that comprehensive censorship was likely to create its own problems, and children needed to be ready for the ‘real world’. Some

COPYCAT KIDS?

46

professionals felt that a regulatory body should not interfere in cultural issues and ‘moral panics’ should be avoided. But others believed that it should have a remit for making sure positive social attitudes were endorsed: “I think somebody like the ITC have got to draw the line and stick to it, you know, it’s a question of who sets the line … is it going to be the television that sets the line – they’re going to want to get away with more aren’t they?” SCHOOL STAFF

“I just think it’s a really worrying area and I think it’s really questioning our democracy, and I think that’s a really really serious issue … “I think to start banning things in case of a few people who might do something …” SOCIAL WORKERS/FOSTER PARENTS

“If you banned everything you’d end up with a lot of very naïve children and when they do become adults they’d become blown away by what actually does happen in the real world.” SCHOOL STAFF

However, the difficulties in deciding where to draw the boundaries were also recognised and people experienced great difficulty in identifying clear guidelines. It was easiest when the risk was of direct emulation of specific behaviour or actions, and became more difficult when the issue was a more indirect or drip-feed effect on attitudes: “The adverts that children do get influenced by, we don’t know which one is going to be next.” LEISURE WORKERS

“It’s very subtle isn’t it? You can’t point to one advert and say that has a major effect on children’s behaviour in the 20th century. It’s not like that, is it? It’s a subtle bombardment of many things, I think you’ve got to make sure that the right messages come across.” SCHOOL STAFF

47

COPYCAT KIDS?

33 Foley Street London W1W 7TH Tel 020 7255 3000 Fax 020 7306 7800 Minicom 020 7306 7753 email [email protected] www.itc.org.uk Price: £5.00 ISBN: 0 900485 83 3