Tony the Tiger. Toucan Sam. Snap, Crackle and Pop. These are the cartoon images I have grown to love. I remember walking (well, probably running or skipping) down the cereal aisle to grab a box of the sugary goodness without hesitation or fear. I was oblivious to the unhealthiness contained inside and frankly, I didn’t care. My primary concern was which colorful box had the best prize or featured the most loveable character.
Now, imagine walking (or running or skipping—whatever you prefer) down the same cereal aisle without Sugar Bear’s smiling face or the fierce fangs of Count Chocula. Frightening isn’t it? Well, the government has the tendency to do that to people.
The government continues to develop strategies and tactics to eliminate childhood obesity. In an effort to curb junk food marketing to children, the government suggests pulling cartoon characters from cereal boxes. Voluntary health guidelines developed earlier this year set maximum levels of fat, sugars and sodium; requesting food companies not to market foods that go beyond such parameters to children ages 2 through 17. The guidelines apply to many media venues, including advertisements on television, in stores and on the Internet, in an effort to reduce rising child obesity levels.
According to www.letsmove.org, childhood obesity rates in America have tripled, and today, nearly one in three children in America are overweight or obese. I get it. Kids are fat these days--there is no way around it. It makes no sense for a five year old to weigh as much as I do. The government is simply looking out for the best interest of America’s children who are not nearly as active as they should or could be. But why should I have to suffer because Carol Brady can’t tell little Cindy or Bobby no? Why should I have to lose a fragment of my childhood shopping experience just because Bobby is three years old and weighs 200 pounds?
I know it’s selfish, but it’s not fair. It’s up to the parents to set the overall standard of health in their household. It is also the parent’s responsibility to tell their children to put the video games aside and find something fun to do outside!
Maybe I am making way too much out of this but if the government pulls the plug on Tony the Tiger, I will be heartbroken. I believe in the government’s objective and overall strategy but they should definitely reconsider some of their tactics. How else will I know how grrreat something is without the help of a talking tiger or his Kellogg cartoon friends?
I agree that the cartoons should be left alone. Unfortunately, the government and scientists are completely lost as to why certain diets work well and others don't. I have been reading a lot about the misguided attempts at defining a healthy diet to Americans. The data they use is faulty, incomplete and obviously biased towards the interests of special interest groups.
ReplyDeleteWe are to believe that fast food is the enemy or sweet cereals. Food is seen as a compartmentalized substance where the omega 3 or vitamin D, or the antioxidants will save us all. The totality of foods as a system in a diet is not studied. Why does the Mediterranean diet work as a whole? How do the Inuit people avoid heart issues when their diet consists primarily of saturated fats?
I remember the camel from Camel Cigarettes. Has the removal of the icon from certain ads, lessened the consumption of cigarettes by young people? I don't think so. Let the kiddies have their Tony Tigers and such. If not, the cereal companies will find other ways to lure them into sugar nirvana.
Going back to last week's conversation re: age. I remember watching this commercial when it wasn't retro. Sigh ... Enough said.
ReplyDeleteGreat post, Shayla. The topic, all on its own, is a heated one on the political front. I love how you used it as an example to reinforce the PR topic: effective objectives, strategies and tactics.
What's "effective" is the biggie here. That's what's so screwy about the link between government-related PR programs and audience targets.
For example:
Government targets Group ABC with this message: "We're going to severely limit how Tony the Tiger ad messages contribute to America's obesity problems."
Then, a week later, that same Government targets Group XYZ with this message: "We're going to create programs that ensure Tony the Tiger ad messages contribute to America's well-being."
Both are relevant targets, yet the message is slightly different. And imagine the various tactics that could fall under each, depending upon how you "heard" the original message.
You make an interesting point Professor Chandler. It is amazing how an organization can create a message specifically designed for one group then use the same message--replacing only a few words--to target another group but offering a completely different meaning. Is this really only something that happens in government-related PR? I would think all or most PR programs do this depending on the audience. After all, you have to cater the message to suit the audience, right?
ReplyDeleteP.S. If it makes you feel any better I love retro ads because they are always best, oldies but goodies ;-)