/ 11 October 1996

Advertising’s storm in a nappy

The trend of featuring children in advertisements has provoked outrage in some circles, writes Hazel Friedman

NO one knows for certain who coined the phrase “butthead”, but most South Africans will recall it as the endearing expletive in the Sanlam Bank “For Sure” advertisement.

The words mouthed by a toddler togged up as a company boss were targeted at a Dennis- the-Menace lookalike wearing a sweaty vest, boots and construction helmet. The words certainly propelled an otherwise unremarkable figure of speech (“For Sure”) into the realms of the unforgettable.

Adorable, right. Or deplorable?

There’s no denying it: children spell C for cash. Children in commercials bring money to supermarket chains and products catering to the ever-burgeoning consumer market.

And for the growing number of marketing executives fighting the increasingly cut- throat battle for commercial dominance, children are becoming nothing less than highly effective weapons aimed straight at the potential consumers’ purse-strings .

But the increasingly popular trend of featuring children in commercials that advertise products primarily for an adult market is fraught with controversy.

In Britain, for example, two tousled toddlers starring in a TV campaign for dominance of the nation’s trolley trade, offer more than a study in childhood innocence.

According to a British market research, six out of 10 consumers would recognise one of the toddlers as Harry, the Safeway trolley kid. Not yet five years old, he already boasts a fan club of thousands of lovestruck mums and children clamouring for mementos of the little star who totes the British equivalent of our Pick `n Pay. Harry has become such a hit that his ads have contributed to Safeway`s increased profits for 1995.

But since the introduction of Molly as the under-five leading lady, who responds to his come-on with a curt put down, the cheeky chat-up ad with adult voice-overs (and innuendo) has caused an outcry – not over increased profits mind, but the potential for pervertedness on the part of paedophiles.

So serious is the public’s concern that the matter has been raised in British Parliament.

Is the response merely a symptom of the neurotic Nineties or are children featured in commercials becoming the latest victims in a long list of commercial exploitation?

Psychologist Susan Hope-Bernard, who has worked with paedophiles for over 10 years, certainly veers towards the latter view.

Hope-Bernard fears that the apparently harmless and endearing scenes portrayed in child adverts serve to reinforce the grossly distorted beliefs harboured by paedophiles regarding the behaviour of children.

“Paedophiles interpret normal gestures by children as deliberate acts of provocation; they believe that children are sexually aware and this cognitive distortion is used to justify their behaviour. This kind of advert is certainly not helpful and could be dangerous.”

But Adam Leigh, account director at Bates Dorland, the agency who made the “When Harry Met Molly Ad”, rejects the deplorable argument. He estimates that as many as 30- million people have seen the ad, but only 20 have complained. “I believe these criticism reflect more on our accusers than on ourselves”, he says.

“All our scripts are regulated by the Independent Television Commission. The children love doing them and we see them as being a lighthearted, popular method of getting a variety of messages across to consumers.”

However, South Africa’s Advertising Standards Authority stipulates that no advertisements should, among other things, encourage children to enter strange places or converse with strangers in an effort to collect coupons, wrappers and labels.

Furthermore, no commercial featuring children should suggest in any way that unless children themselves buy or encourage other people to buy services or products they will be failing in some duty or lacking in loyalty towards a person or organisation. But nothing is written on featuring children in adult scenarios with sexual innuendos.

Says a senior accounts director at a local leading ad agency: “We would never use children to simulate adult mating games, but for children, acting in commercials is the fulfillment of a fantasy. Children love to dress up and pretend to be grown-ups. The fact that they are paid to do it actually reduces the potential for exploitation.”

But psychologist Anne Hill likens children in advertising to an elevated form of child labour. “Children are extremely impressionable and the most seemingly innocuous form of role-playing may affect them in ways that are not evident to people in the advertising industry. Kids in advertising also tend to become much more image- and status-conscious than their non- exposed peers.

“At a time when they should be focussing on innocent pursuits, their competitive instincts are being developed, and at a time when money should be the last of their worries, they have become marketable commodities and income earners.”

Are we therefore looking at a generation of kids earning corporate salaries from commercials before they’ve learnt to cope with pimples and mixed parties? Or is there really no harm in cultivating a culture of corporate ad-kids?

Whether the adorable/deplorable debate signifies another example of storm in a nappy trivia is questionable. It certainly is true that as in pornography there is no proven cause in the relationship between advertising imagery and aberrant sexual/violent behaviour. But one should never underestimate the power of the ad.

And what this “kids in the commercials” controversy highlights is the issue of the exploitation of children, their status and rights in life, art and business.