Viewpoint: Commercialisation of childhood? The ethics of research with primary school children

Agnes Nairn
Marketing at the School of Management, University of Bath

The 7–11 market has never been more attractive; British children in this age group are estimated to have a personal disposable income (pocket money, gifts, odd jobs) of around $2.7 billion and their US counterparts $20 billion. They influence family purchases to the tune of £30 billion in the UK and $300 billion in the USA. They love shopping and the vast majority have a TV in their own bedroom where they can receive marketing messages unimpeded by annoying adults. It is not surprising, therefore, that there is now greater commercial interest in this age group than ever before. However, researching their views is emotive and fraught, especially if the research is profit-motivated rather than to inform social policy.

The advertising industry is no stranger to the ethics of targeting children. The topic has been debated heavily since the 1970s and is currently in the media spotlight again with the junk food controversy. The debate has, however, been stultified by the overwhelming dominance of Piaget's cognitive development paradigm. Put crudely, developmentalists have sought to establish the age at which children understand persuasive intent. At this age (thought to be between 8 and 12) children are assumed to have 'cognitive protection' and ads are not considered 'unfair'. The discourse propounded in the press of the 'media savvy' child fuels this view. Of course, understanding an advertising message does not 'protect' from emotional advertising or executions that harness implicit memory - but that is for another Viewpoint ...

The debate over the fairness or otherwise of conducting market research with children is not yet mature enough for any one paradigm to have gained supremacy. However, it is my feeling that it would not be satisfactory for the market research industry to follow the advertising industry along the line of argument that if a child understands that he or she is taking part in research then it is somehow OK. Instead we need to find ways of disentangling two current discourses that surround the socio-political positioning of children in our society. On the one hand, we have a view that it is the duty of adults who care for children to protect them from profit-motivated influence. Organisations such as the Campaign for Commercial Free Childhood (CCFC) provide a strong voice here. On the other hand is the assumption that children have a right to be heard and to participate in the creation of children's products and services. The recent innovative youth research conducted by the Tate in London, which resulted in a massive increase in youth attendance and interest in the art gallery, is an excellent example here.

How, then, should the behaviour of market researchers who sell children's information to commercial enterprises be situated in relation to these two discourses, namely the child's right to protection and the child's right to be heard?

Let me begin the debate by citing three types of behaviour that, in my opinion, are not ethically acceptable when researching with primary school children.

1. DRIVING A WEDGE BETWEEN CHILDREN AND THEIR PARENTS

Research agencies should not seek to alienate young children from their parents. One agency that signs up girls as undercover agents by internet pays lip-service to parental consent but uses language such as 'don't forget to run it by the 'rents'', which simply serves to encourage disrespect of parents. And client companies can use research to educate children in pestering techniques or what they call 'the art of fine whining'. One media research agency claimed recently that 'you have to put copy into the ad that gives kids all the reasons they should want this, in a language they can express to parents'.

2. ASKING CHILDREN TO SPY ON THEIR FRIENDS

Research agencies should not seek to exploit children's friendships. The 'secret agent' agency mentioned above encourages the girls to 'be slick and find out some sly scoop on your friends' and tells them they've 'gotta be sneaky'. Since Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point and Emanuel Rosen's The Anatomy of Buzz, the power of viral marketing has not looked back. But I think we need to debate whether young children's friendships should be hijacked in this way. One agency claims to have 200,000 'connected' young people on its database and 'scientific' techniques to ensure young people pass on the right message in the right way. As the website explains, the agency understands how to 'ignite connectors to advocate for brands'. This research currently recruits only the over-12s, but how long before primary school friendships are used in this way?

3. EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN

Research agencies should recognise the value of the information provided by children who take part in research. Children deserve honest feedback on how their information is used and who profits from it. Children also deserve some recompense for their time. One research agency states in a lengthy disclaimer 'we do try to provide motivation for completing our surveys, but we can not guarantee that you will receive a prize every month. By submitting your answers/opinions, you agree to acknowledge the chance that you will not receive any compensation for your time.' Another states that it provides compensation in 30% of cases.

As the children's market continues to grow, the market research industry has to debate its stance on these issues.

International Journal of Market Research 48(2), 2006

Would you like to respond to this Viewpoint? Or perhaps you have an idea for another? Responses and new submissions are welcome. They should be emailed to the IJMR, where they'll be considered for publication.

What's New - Membership - Company Partner Service - Members' Area - Code/Guidelines - Qualifications - Training - Awards
Events - Networking - Publications - Media Info - Market Research - Search - Site Map - A-Z Directory - Contact Us - Home