Day 065 - 09 Dec 94 - Page 47
1 have looked at it in some detail, which clearly shows there
2 is a stage through which children go, in which they
3 primarily do think that advertisements are about providing
4 information. I think this is one study. It is one study
5 and I do quote others. I think what it is clearly showing
6 is that there is a pattern of learning that goes on
7 throughout childhood.
8
9 I think what also strikes me as being particularly relevant
10 -- I have mentioned it in the second column -- was even
11 though children do not fully understand advertising's
12 intent, commercial intent, that they quite clearly
13 correlate characters with products. I know that is
14 something that advertisers who use characters to help sell
15 their products I am sure are delighted to know that; that
16 with very, very young children it quite clearly identifies
17 the character which they may be attracted to with a
18 particular brand, and this is part of the reason why
19 character merchandise, in particular amongst young
20 children, is so popular.
21
22 Q. So then, tell me what you meant when you wrote: "This
23 study found that three-quarters of four year-olds were
24 unable to differentiate between programmes and adverts";
25 you tell me what it means.
26 A. I said just know in answer to that question to verbally
27 differentiate.
28
29 Q. Yes. Why did you not put that in, because what this study
30 shows is that, in fact, any such proposition as a general
31 proposition about children's ability to differentiate is
32 quite wrong?
33 A. No, I would not disagree that it is quite wrong; it
34 shows that younger children have certain abilities, for
35 example, to match characters with advertisements. But that
36 does not mean that they have a more developed understanding
37 of what an advertisement is all about.
38
39 Q. "They know that it is different from a programme, even the
40 tiny little children, and even the tiny little children
41 knew that there was an association between the product
42 advertised and the character. Therefore, they knew that
43 the character was not part of the programme, but associated
44 with the product appearing in some different species of
45 visual image"; is that not right?
46 A. Well, some of them got it completely the wrong way
47 around as well.
48
49 Q. Sorry?
50 A. Some of the younger children got it completely the
51 wrong way around as well. They thought the programmes were
52 adverts and the adverts were programmes, it seems.
53
54 Q. What I am driving at is this, Ms. Dibb: My suggestion is
55 that you have totally misrepresented the true effect of
56 this study in your paper. You have missed out the
57 words -- can I suggest what you should have written if you
58 were trying to be fair and truthful? You should have
59 written: "Zuckerman and Gianinno found that three-quarters
60 of four year-olds were unable verbally" -- I insert that
