2007-11-03 17:49:39 · 6 answers · asked by ☢☠☣☢☠☣ 3 in Pregnancy & Parenting ➔ Parenting
Well considering government is supposed to serve the people, I suppose the people in general. whether in health, education, wealth or anything else you can think of. Basically, I'm wondering why it hasn't happened, apart from corporate interests interfering,
2007-11-03 18:03:33 · update #1
Merchandising is so tied into childrens programming, that if you're talking TV, the product placement is the show, Dora, Diego, etc. Not just Rachel drinking a Coke on Friends. So you cant really say the shows wont be produced because of lack of ad revenue, since the show is one big ad.
Now, who is the the disadvantage to, the children, the parents, the industry, somes advantages are others disadvantages. Then you have public ads, that say dont do drugs, need more specifics.
2007-11-03 17:56:04 · answer #1 · answered by lillilou 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Our capitalistic society would come to a stand still. Because children aren't told what they want / must have, Fisher Price and McDonalds would lose millions. Children would be forced to use their imaginations when playing. Obesity rates would decline.
Actually, product placement in children's programming would probably run rampant.
2007-11-04 00:57:07 · answer #2 · answered by pureevilpopstar 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think there are any. I think that there should be public health advertisements... maybe educational BOOK ads. But all the other stuff is... crap.
2007-11-04 02:14:45 · answer #3 · answered by Haulie 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
can't think of 1 disadvantage. Lets make it to all kids
2007-11-04 01:33:20 · answer #4 · answered by Rachel 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, we do have something called the first ammendment. I think it's up to the individual networks to decide what they put on their own channels.
2007-11-04 09:11:03 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
McDonalds would go out of business? I'm sure the americans wouldnt like that...
2007-11-04 00:54:49 · answer #6 · answered by *~*C*~* 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋