Evaluate the concept of ‘pester power’

This article evaluates the concept of ‘pester power’ and its influence on children's buying habits. It also discusses the ethical implications of marketing to children.

Running Head: BUSINESS ETHICS
Business Ethics
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1BUSINESS ETHICS
1 Evaluate the concept of ‘pester power’, using the concept of comparing means to an
end.
The Pester Power can be referred to as The Nag Factor that is the tendency of the children
to request unrelentingly to their parents for the advertise items. These children are bombarded
with the messages of the marketers. The phrase is usually used for describing the children’s
influence which negatively shapes the buying habits of the parents (Boyland and Whalen 2015).
The buying influence of the children is growing with the average household income in the
household. It has lead to the situation of greater influence of the children in the consumer
choices. In this manner, the Pester Power is being highly relevant in the modern household. The
strategy of “Pester Power” is usually applied on the children between the age group of 4-6 years
(Kunkel, Castonguay and Filer 2015). Undoubtedly, it earns positive results for the companies
advertising and selling the items. It is directly related to the rise of child advertising. The concept
of means to an end has to be dragged over here. The concept implies doing something in order to
achieve something.
The only objective of the marketers is to have maximum sell of their products and the child
consumers are the means to the end (Lopez-Gonzalez, Estévez and Griffiths 2017). In the case
study, the same factor comes to the fore. Melanie’s daughter Annie fallen as the victim of the
Pester Power applied by the manufacturer’s of Clarabel doll. The marketers of the Clarabel doll
made the best use of the “pester power” tool to grab the attention of the children like Annie.
They made these little consumers loyal to their brand who forced their parents to buy the
advertised items in spite of their financial difficulties. In the advertisements, the doll was
depicted as an animated cartoon that is able to talk and walk on its own. Moreover, the

2BUSINESS ETHICS
advertisement was designed in such a manner that there are various functions performed by the
only doll. This left influence on the psychology of the children upto greater extent and ultimately
left the children judge each other based on their belongings.
2 Do you think that Melanie was justified in feeling angry about the way in which the
doll was advertised and marketed?
I believe that Melanie was justified in feeling angry about the way in which the doll was
advertised and marketed. She is right in pointing out that the society has become so superficial
that even the children judged each other as per their belongings. The Clarabel doll has been
marketed and advertised aggressively in the media. The doll was the latest craze among the little
girls and every girl of Annie’s age craved for the doll. The image prepared by the marketers
about such attractive products making the child customers loyal pressurized the parents in one
way or the other (Pitt et al. 2016). In the contemporary world, the family structures have evolved
and the upbringing of children has become more liberal than before.
The children have become the primary target of the marketers in the modern day. It has
been found that children are prone to be influenced by various external factors and the most
effective ones among them are the Television and the Friends (Signal et al. 2017). I agree with
Melanie’s identification of the unethical use of children’s minds for marketing products. She has
found out that such aggressive marketing can create problems for the parents who could afford
the toy and surely those who could not. I am at one with the belief of Melanie that the
advertisement is misleading for the children. However, when the whole issue is seen from the
perspective of a marketer, advertisement would have been justified by stating that it’s the

3BUSINESS ETHICS
responsibility of the parents to say “just no” to the children who are demanding instead of
blaming the marketers for marketing their products.
3 Is it ethical to market to children or to other vulnerable members of society? Justify
your answer using ethical theory.
It has been found that in the tech-reliant generation, most of the children from an early age
become the user of the internet. Roughly 16,000 advertisements are watched only by children.
In the year 2013, the First Lady Michelle Obama has brought the children targeted marketing to
be offending and unethical. The food companies have been blamed the most for being the reason
behind the childhood obesity and unhealthy eating habits (Kelly et al. 2015). It has been
considered that marketing is an integral part of industry culture, the children and other vulnerable
members of the society face difficulties in distinguishing what is fiction, what reality is, what
truth is and what the consequences are. There are companies targeting and advertising to the
kids have undergone various improvements.
However, the critics have pointed out that there will be some people who will always feel
that before a certain age , there is nothing called appropriate advertising for children . As per the
ethics of marketing to children, the companies should understand the way the kids tick (Hurwitz,
Montague and Wartella 2017). The ethics of marketing to children suggests that the parents must
be communicated with and the kids must be encouraged to advocate the brand. The production
of original content is most important rather than attracting the little consumers with decorative
but fake and vague content. The parents must be involved equally with the children instead of
marketing directly to them.

4BUSINESS ETHICS
References
Boyland, E.J. and Whalen, R., 2015. Food advertising to children and its effects on diet: review
of recent prevalence and impact data. Pediatric diabetes, 16(5), pp.331-337.
Hurwitz, L.B., Montague, H. and Wartella, E., 2017. Food marketing to children online: A
content analysis of food company websites. Health communication, 32(3), pp.366-371.
Kelly, B., Vandevijvere, S., Freeman, B. and Jenkin, G., 2015. New media but same old tricks:
food marketing to children in the digital age. Current obesity reports, 4(1), pp.37-45.
Kunkel, D.L., Castonguay, J.S. and Filer, C.R., 2015. Evaluating industry self-regulation of food
marketing to children. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 49(2), pp.181-187.
Lopez-Gonzalez, H., Estévez, A. and Griffiths, M.D., 2017. Marketing and advertising online
sports betting: A problem gambling perspective. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 41(3),
pp.256-272.
Pitt, H., Thomas, S.L., Bestman, A., Stoneham, M. and Daube, M., 2016. “It's just everywhere!”
Children and parents discuss the marketing of sports wagering in Australia. Australian and New
Zealand journal of public health, 40(5), pp.480-486.
Signal, L.N., Smith, M.B., Barr, M., Stanley, J., Chambers, T.J., Zhou, J., Duane, A., Jenkin,
G.L., Pearson, A.L., Gurrin, C. and Smeaton, A.F., 2017. Kids’ Cam: an objective methodology

5BUSINESS ETHICS
to study the world in which children live. American journal of preventive medicine, 53(3),
pp.e89-e95.