What do Kids and Parents Think?

Kids today don't notice the sexually provocative clothing ads on billboards, transit shelters, buses and in popular magazines. According to recent research using the Reactorz research community, there is no brand recognition among the younger kids (8-12) to major labels such as Gap, Calvin Klein, Buffalo and Parasuco. Not only do they not notice the brands - they don't notice the sexual angle being used to sell the clothing.

Teens have more brand recognition but are turned off by the sexually provocative advertising campaigns. It doesn't affect how they think about the clothing - they are so used to it that they draw a distinction between an advertising campaign they don't like and clothing that they do like.

What do parents think? Advertising that puts models in explicit sexual poses is wrong but they feel it is having no affect on their children.

In order to gauge kids and teens reactions to sexually provocative or suggestive advertising we asked them to take a look at some major label advertising. These ads were selected because they could be found publicly (billboards, transit shelter ads, magazines) and covered a range of labels and advertising styles from the sedate to semi-porn. Click here to see the ads.

Over 200 Reactorz members were asked to fill out a survey regarding their recognition of the ads, attitudes and opinions to the advertising. They also had opportunities for open-ended discussion. Finally, they were asked to respond to how they felt about seeing the provocative ads for the purpose of research as many expressed strongly negative attitudes to the ads.

The Reactorz Parents Panel made up of 20 parents of Reactorz members between the age of 8 and 12 were also asked to fill out a survey that included the subject advertising and similar questions about their opinions of such advertising and their recognition of it.

Brand recognition was low as mentioned above but the kids also said they rarely paid any attention to these kinds of ads. They've become background noise - so common that they don't provoke comment or even awareness unless pointed out to them. Several members of the Parents Panel welcomed the opportunity that the research presented to sit down with their kids and talk about such advertising as it bothered them when they thought about it but like the kids they had gotten quite used to this form of advertising. In turns kids and teens complained that there were not enough opportunities to discuss these issues, particularly with their parents. They are looking for guidance but as society becomes more and more inured to sexually explicit advertising it ceases to be a common topic of conversation in families.

Teens of course had much more to say about provocative advertising. They are also more the intended target of the advertising. They consider themselves to be very media-savvy. They understand sex sells but they don't think that they are influenced by the advertising - they feel they see through it for what it is, a manipulative advertising technique that works on everyone else. When it came down to it though what may be most important is that there was very low brand recognition with these ads. If they are making an impact it isn't through brand awareness, though it may have a more long-lasting subtle impact on body image and self-esteem. They like some of the clothes though they pride themselves in being able to admire the clothes 'despite' the offensive advertising. They do consider it to be offensive and were quite hostile about the suitability of these ads being in public places. They even questioned having to see the ads on Reactorz though many had second thoughts and welcomed the opportunity to express their opinions in the hope that the advertising industry would take note.

So what does impact a kids' clothing choices if it isn't the billboards and transit shelter ads? Their peers are the most dominant influence, followed by media stars such as Britney Spears or Avril Lavigne. While their parents actually buy the clothing they rarely make the purchase without kids input so tracking their influence is important.

So should marketers relax, knowing that the kids are all ok? Both the parents and kids strongly stated 'NO!' They want advertisers to take note of their objection and find another way to sell clothing. They felt that sex in advertising is getting too explicit and even if the kids and teens don't 'seem' to be affected they still worry about the overall impact these kinds of portrayals will have.