Pester power: is it always bad?

"Pester power" has become one of those marketing terms that strikes fear in the heart of parents, mostly because it translates into whinging, crying, pouting and floor-rolling whenever you pass a display of something sugar-filled or stamped out in cheap plastic.

My husband tries to combat this by telling the kids they can have a "treat" at the store, then amends this to "a fruit treat - any piece of fruit you want" right before we check out. You can imagine how well that goes over.

Can pester power ever be used for good instead of ill? It seems like the eco-folks have enlisted kids to encourage parents to turn off lights, recycle and so on. Yet are there good ways that other companies can use pester power, or does it require having a product or food that parents like anyway ("Please, mummy, can I have the sprouting broccoli spears!")?

Or should we ban advertisers from appealing directly to kids? After all, any advert that claims a cereal is "fun" or a toy is "cool" is not talking to parents - should it be allowed?

Comments

[Paul Carr]

I like your use of my photograph. I never quite thought o fit in this context, but I think it works.

[supermother]

The charmers give loads back. They make people feel good. People seek them out they are such fun to be around. It's a fair trade as valuable as having a Martha scrubbing your floor and more fun.

[j]

ps I will make you a present of my other fave term atm: you know the kind of job where you have to deal with hundreds of tiny trivial irritating issues, all needing attention? I call it "maggot farming". Small, wriggy, annoying, and if you leave them alone too long they will collectively chew a hole in your leg...

[j]

heh heh Lazymummy, nice to see these things being used!

[Lazy Mummy]

Right and Romantic - those are the guys you want on your side and those are most of the "charmers" I know.

Btw, J, I used "diva management" with a colleague recently she loved it (of course, it had to be a "her"). Just wanted you to know so you can track it & see when it comes into the common lexicon, just like "googled". :)

[j]

"It's nice to praise people, indeed, and make them feel good about themselves, but not if you only do it to get something off them."

Oddly enough I think that Sue and Mumof2 agree on this? Sue, where do you see that Mo2 isnt saying exactly that?

She is quite right that being responsive, considerate and good company is something which people find charming, and will reward. Equally, being abrasive and shorttermpered isnt likely to get people anywhere.

We are not really talking Wrong but Wromantic vs Right but Repulsive here (1066and all that). Right and Romantic cavaliers...

[mumoftwo]

Sue, I don't understand how charmers are getting something for free without giving anything. Charm is a transaction: the charmer is charming and the charmed is, well, charmed. The fact that many people are charmed by charmers means that being charmed is of value to them (they like the attention, they enjoy the game, they appreciate the effort). If you don't want to be charmed, simply pay no attention to charmers, and they will cease to be such, by definition!

[mumoftwo]

I didn't think my use of the term 'charming' was so controversial. I think there is a world of difference between someone who fancies themselves as a bit of a 'charmer' and who uses their (often very dubious) charm to get their own way, and someone who is charming in the sense of delightful to be with. We have a woman at work who is incredibly charming, as she is attractive but doesn't flaunt it, very flattering to others without being insincere and is genuinely interested in others and makes them feel special when she listens to them. I fail to see how anyone is being 'had' by being charmed by her; to me, it adds greatly to the work-place to have people like this around. I don't 'teach' my children to be charming but I do hope they learn through trial and error (as Gipsy said) to interact with people in a positive, appealing and open way and are appreciative of the gifts of others; if others then find them charming, all the better.

[Sue]

Ah well, my definition of 'fair' has to differ from yours, SM! It's nice to praise people, indeed, and make them feel good about themselves, but not if you only do it to get something off them.

On the Cav/Roundhead divide - I don't see it as that at all! I see it as perhaps the 'sons of mary and the sons of martha' divide - ie the workers and the shirkers, the pay-as-you-goers and the freeloaders.

Those who think their charm is all the currency they need are freeloaders. Parasites.

Cheats.

[supermother]

Yes, that is probably so although some cultural and religious conditioning might make some people whatever their nature less likely to charm and more likely to be dour.

I am supposedly ENFJ (see http://www.personalitypage.com/ENFJ.html) but not sure if I have charm, whatever that is.

[Lazy Mummy]

Funny that you mention that SM, as I was wondering the same thing, but I think that's too simplistic as I know lots of protestants who are v. charming. As I said earlier, I bet it's more tied in to things like Myers Briggs Type Indicator/personality type.

[supermother]

Is it the old traditional English divide here then between those boring old protestants puritan roundheads and the fun attractive charming catholic cavaliers? I'm in the Catholic camp.
Don't see what's wrong with getting your own way through charm a bit of flattery and being right too.

It's not deception. It's part of how the world works and recipients of the charm love it too. Yesterday I remember at a work thing flattering someone, not particularly deliberately but he was so pleased. I think I made him really happy for a few moments. What's wrong with that? People do get something from it - they enjoy the company of the flattering and charmer. It's a fair bargain. People like to spend time with people like that.

[delilah]

I hope my children all pick up the art of telling people to go to hell in such a way that they actually look forward to the trip. Charm and a bit of flattery, I think.

[j]

coming in late (have been away)

Sue raises an important point about beibng a manager. Very often, people working for me think their way is right. In fact, I'd be annoyed if they came up with something they knew was flaky. It's a given that we present our best effort with some sincerity.

because I am senior, I get to assess the way forward. Partly I might add new information, or a context they dont have such as wider strategic stuff or legal stuff. What is good I incorporate, what is less good I explain why it wont be happening.

This woprks as I am elected the boss by merit (ie open competition for a post). if I were the boss's mistress then I wouldnt have the credibility to do it. Gipsy is right, leaders have to lead, but only once elected on merit.

This works for children too, as SM says. She doesnt shop much, so she has credibility in not buying pester power things. I do it differently but I try not to treat myself and not them: we all wait for our treats.

I have found that "yes that's lovely, no you can't have it" actually works very well up to age 16 and even beyond.

[Sue]

I think your definition of 'getting your own way' would be my 'getting the right way' - it doesn't matter whose way it is, if it's the right one!

We really can't have a situation where 'my way is the best way' can we, as we would all think that!!!

[Gipsy]

>>Why should anyone of us 'get our own way'

Get our own way implies that it is just handed to you on a plate. Leaders are a necessity in life. Some people are good at leadership, some are lousy. The best leaders are those that can listen to and take input from the people they're in charge of, and ultimately make the right decision based on all the relevant information. Good leaders see through artifice, and know when they're being presented with the truth. We can't all be leaders, but we can all have leadership qualities, and a good leadership quality is to know how to best support the group by getting across the truth as you know it during a decision making process in the best possible way, so that it gets listened to and taken account of.

Those are ideally the best skills that you can teach your children, and I can't see anything wrong with that. I also don't see that there is anything smarmy or exploitative about it.

I really don't understand where you're coming from or what on earth you are talking about Sue. I've dealt with some extremely charismatic and forceful CEO's with none of the bad attitude you get from the likes of Alan Sugar and a ton more money and success because of that. Smarminess or whatever you want to get it doesn't get you to the top. A true leader is confident within themselves, is capable of listening to other people and taking on board what they say but also has the confidence to know when they need to strike it alone and act on their own gut instincts. A true leader treats everyone with respect and is nice to those above them as well as those below them.

[Lazy Mummy]

Or in other words:

Sometimes we should get our own way because we are right and because someone needs to take responsibility for a decision.

Not always, but sometimes.

[Lazy Mummy]

But Sue, there's a fundamental fallacy in what you're saying here, which is the assumption that a compromise is always right/the best outcome, or that a group decision is always the best decision.

Not necessarily true. Maybe from the perspective of group unity and I agree, we've all read the studies/been to the management training that posited that people are more supportive of a decision when they are involved in making it but it also leads to a lot of unnecessary meetings/waffle in many situations. Besides which, if you study group decision making, you'll see that the participants/stakeholders are using their charm/interpersonal skills to influence the group anyway. In fact, people can be just as influenced into making bad decisions by someone who has obnoxious uncharming personal skills as they can by someone who's a charmer. Just a different motivation.

[Sue]

Isn't the issue whether we use charm 'to get our own way'?? If we do, then it's an illegitimate use of charm, and if we don't, then, OK, it's just being 'charming' in a nice sense?

Why should anyone of us 'get our own way', I guess is my basic question? Whatever method we use to get it - eg, charm, flattery, gun to the head, etc!

Thinking about it, I'd say it's actually the 'getting our own way' that I fundamentally object to!! (ie, becuase it implies that somelese does NOT get their own way!) (which is why I only back win-win situations, or take-it-in-turn situations)

[Lazy Mummy]

Oh Sue, please don't start being all intense on definitions. Be a bit charming about this. ;)

From Merriam Webster online:

Main Entry:
charm·ing Listen to the pronunciation of charming
Pronunciation:
\ˈchär-miŋ\
Function:
adjective
Date:
1634

: extremely pleasing or delightful :

Main Entry:
flat·tery Listen to the pronunciation of flattery
Pronunciation:
\ˈfla-tə-rē\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural flat·ter·ies
Date:
14th century

1 a: the act or practice of flattering b (1): something that flatters (2): insincere or excessive praise

Two different words; two different meanings and for once the dictionary look-up is faster than me arguing the differences. I agree, one needs to be aware that flattery is a tool others use to get around one, and vice versa. But someone can be perfectly charming and perfectly sincere without trying to flatter or manipulate. The two are not synonymous.

I'm 110% with SM on this one. I've worked for only one person who was utterly charming (ironically a sales guy) but also completely sincere, highly ethical and very competent. It was a delightful experience -far more pleasant than all the other people I've worked for who were equally competent, sincere & ethical but far less charming.

[Sue]

I really do think we have to distinguish very clearly between being nice - pleasant, polite etc - and being 'charming'. 'Charm' is what it says it is 'charm' (a spell, a glamour, etc), something that is INTENDED to decieve the recipient, something INTENDED to allow the charmer to get something for merely the 'price' of charming their target. There is NO fair exchange of value, that is my point - the charmer merely 'charms' (smiles, schoozes, flatters, whatever) and gets their own way off someone, WITHOUT (and this is my essential point) giving anything in exchange (other than their 'charm' - and if you're daft enough to think that of value, well, shame on you)(a la the fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me!).

Yes, of course I think busienss transactions - daily life transactions - should be conducted in a polite, pleasnat way - we all know the surly check out person, the grumpy sales assistent (and customer!), who just go round spreading their unpleasantness, BUT that to me is nothing to do with trying to 'charm' someone into doing what you want, for your own benefit, NOT THEIRS. Charm is, essentially therefore, exploitative and parasitic - you GET, but you don't GIVE. That's why its immoral.

As for flattery - well, always check the Qui Bono (is that the phrase?!) Who is actually benefitting?? And as Delilah says, it's very hard to resist a skilful flatterer! After all, isn't the most flattering thing you can say to someone that they're too smart to fall for flattery?!!!!!!

No, I stand by my original premise - if someone wants something off you for their benefit, without any exchange of value, then it's just not on.

[DELILAH]

I think Sue is quite wise to be suspicious. Let's call schmooze by its old name - flattery. Flattery is a very powerful skill. I once accompanied a pair of Eurocrats on a series of meetings with senior officials around Eastern Europe. These two courtiers enlivened their visits by playing a game with each other - to see who could get away with the most outrageous flattery of their hosts. A tally was kept in a notebook and updated in the hotel before dinner, with triumphs of manipulation and foot-in-mouth incidents in different columns. A sum of money changed hands at the end of each visit, depending on the result. Raised with a rather dour Presbyterian attitude to flattery, I was astounded at how readily the victims lapped up the most outrageous compliments, then became overbearing purveyors of advice and criticism to this demon duo (all eagerly accepted, to all appearances); and then how quickly they became dependent on the flatters' opinion, which allowed the flatterers to manipulate things in a direction of their choosing. I have to say I've used this experience to great effect myself. It seems that no-one is immune to flattery; even the seemingly most humble person is vain enough about something - say, their expertise in economics, or their rare book collection - to be vulnerable to flattery, if skilfully done. The only defence is Sue's; a personal reality-check that reminds you that you're probably not as clever/perceptive/well-connected as this chap is telling you you are. Is flattery immoral? Probably, but no more than telling white lies; after all, the recipient of the flattery is better informed about the subject than you are!

[Gipsy]

Oh Sue, I'm going to have to stop replying to you. It is just too emotionally draining living in your world, even just a little bit through your posts.

We all use being nice to get what we want - it is a necessity. Want to earn more money by setting up your own business? No doubt you'll be nice to the bank manager no matter how odious they might be. And so forth. A business lunch or conference? Then you have to schmooze a little, it's unavoidable - it is the small talk you make.

[supermother]

I don't understand the objection. Some people have lousy personal skills, are great at their work but get nowhere. It's how the world works, surely? Others can make others feel good and use that to their advantage - what's wrong with that? It's not deception. It's how you get on at work, with partners and with others.

Obviously if someone is deceiving you, pretending to be single when they're married to get you into bed or saying the products they are selling you are wool when they're acrylic then yes we need our children not to be gullible and see through people like that but if we just mean someone who is charming, they are great people to be around. I would love my children to be seen as charming and good company. There are plenty of ways to persuade someone to do a deal and charm is just one extra arrow in our quivers surely?

[Sue]

Just the reverse, SM! We urgently need to teach our children to realise when they are being schmoozed (ie, taken for a sucker!) and so resist it. The last thing we need in this world is yet more 'users' of other people.

You so often talk good sense (if toughly!) that I'm quite 'shocked' to hear you say what you did. I really, really do feel, deep down in my guts, that people who resort to charm to get their own way are exploitative users who think the rest of the world is 'meat' for them to feed on.

The only 'safe' way to deal with such people is either to stonewall them straight off, and let them know they haven't found yet another sucker in you, or, in some rare instances, to 'enjoy the game'. I think the old fasthioned traditional male would do this sometimes - he could see perfectly clearly that Little Miss Kitten was trying it on, and would, out of his own free will, allow her to (think she was!) get away with it, because he enjoyed the performance (and presumably the sex he got as a reward!!!)

[supermother]

Some people of either sex are born charming and very skilled at it and get their own way so often in life and in work. Others are just as internally good or nice but can't charm anyone. Just another example of how unfair the world is. I'm sure we help teach children how to charm - it's a really useful skill.

[j]

LOL gipsy I think what you have learnt above all is the value of teamwork and playing to your strengths.

your poor mother...

[Sue]

LM - I'm afraid I only tolerate sales people who say: 'Look, we've got this product/service, this is what it can do, if you want it, buy it, if not, walk away.'

I just cannot stand someone trying to schmooze me - I feel it's taking me for a sucker.

It's a real gut reaction in me!

[Lazy Mummy]

Ah, but Sue, that just shows you're not a sales person! Charm is an inevitable part of sales and negotiations. Another way of looking at it might be: it's the skill that allows you to get to know someone and find out what they really want, which is always useful in selling - most folks don't really want to sell stuff to customers who don't want it. (I'm thinking corporate sales/big purchases not shop stuff here).

Bet there's some correlation between Myers-Briggs types and comfort with charm/appreciation of it/skill at it.

[Daisy]

SM's point about the new religion is interesting. I seem to remember the church of england thinking about holding sunday services in supermarkets. If you can't make 'em go to church take church to them.

[Sue]

I agree both that we can overanlyse, and definitely that learning negotiation skills is a very useful life skill - but I'd still exclude 'charming and smarming' as part of any negotiation! (As opposed to 'being nice' of course, to make the negotiation pleasant all round, and fairness to make it win-win.)

[Gipsy]

I think it is possible to over analyse this! We all use tactics to get what we want, as children and as adults, not to be exploitative but to develop the negotiating skills we all need in order to live in a harmonious society. As children, these skills tend to be a bit more polarised and exaggerated, like everything children do. We develop as we get older, with the guidance of family and our experience in peer groups, healthy negotiating skills. So yes, a girl will or may use cutsy acts to get what she wants, but it would be wrong to put adult interpretations on her actions.

My two younger sisters and I had a strategy, something necessary in a large family if you're ever to get anything. I would start first with reason - see this is the very logical and reasonable reason why you should give us/take us/allow us to XYZ. My next sister was best at charm, something I've always lacked and still do, and then we had our secret weapon to be pulled out only when absolutely necessary - my youngest sister had the biggest roundest brown eyes, and the ability from a very young age to let them go all liquid and have just a single tear roll down her cheek.

What did that teach me? That logic and reasoning are good tactics, being nice is always a good approach, and if all else fails, a bit of a cry may not get you what you want but it can be a nice release at times :)

[Sue]

I suppose it's a truism (Freudian or otherwise!) that the relationship dynamic between daughter/father and son/mother is complex, and almost inevitably, I would suppose, affected by a parent's own relationship with their parents. I had a 'push-over' dad, whom I could very easily 'get round' (well, most things!), but strangely, from a very early age I refrained from doing so - I felt somehow that it wasn't right for me to take advantage of his kindness to me.

I think the whole thing about 'getting round' someone - anyone, in any circumstances - by using charm and appeal (irrespective of sex appeal!) is, to me, somewhat abhorrent, in that there is, I feel, an underlying exploitativeness about it, an idea that you can get someone else to do something for your benefit without any effort on your part - it's somehow cheating. A 'fair' transaction is that 'I will do something for you if you will do something for me' etc, and that 'something' has to be of value to the person offering it in exchange. Just behaving 'charmingly' or 'winningly' doesn't I believe 'cost' the charmer anything, and makes them think they can 'get other people to do things for them for free'.

I'm probably making very heavy weather of this, and perhaps I'm coiming across very 'capitalist' with an exchange theory of value being applied to human relationships.

I would say immediately, by the way, that the above in no way applies to doing things for people you love - the 'caritas' that impels, very rightly, us to care and be compassionate without the slightest expectation of reward, the unconditional love of parents/partners etc, especially in cases of need.

[mumoftwo]

We all have our weak points, for example, my husband does love his food and at one point, I did have to blatantly say to him that it is not kind to let children eat too much rubbish when the school run home seemed to always involve going past a bakery...and he did take that on board. But as someone says, part of the good thing about having two parents is the different interactional styles between them. My husband is a push-over when it comes to food treats (ice creams, sweets), for example, but not over schooling or going to bed. I think it's good for different parents to be the 'baddie' though, it's horrible if you are always the one saying 'no' and they are always saying 'yes', and I do know dads who completely undermine the mum's decisions or even say things like 'mummy's so strict' which I would find very stressful.

As for shopping, with two under five, no thanks! I do internet shopping for groceries and do the odd mad dash into one clothes shop when really desperate, but that's it. It does reduce the opportunities for pester power (ours are mainly around adverts on the TV) but as the children grow up, they will have to navigate their way through the consumer world. So far, given their ages, I have had no hesitation in censorship, for example, of really inappropriate clothing from relatives, but obviously as they get older, they will probably go out of their way to wear really inappropriate clothes, I certain did (the old 'are you wearing a belt?' joke came out every Sat night from my dad as I tottered out in my miniskirt...)

[M]

I think the branding question is a serious one, to pick up from SM's consumerism/religion point. My girls' age group 10-14 is the target of a huge marketing phenomenon; KGOY Kids Getting Older Younger. This has brought with it a new set of pressures and problems. Alyssa Quart's book Branded is an excellent analysis of this.
I have always tried to say that a car, type of clothing etc doesn't make you what you are, but I do like to look good and don't want a beaten up old car, because it costs more to maintain! Every so often, I'll give in to a request for a DVD, or awful food, because I think denying children all that brings a different and often destructive set of problems.
SM, I hate shopping too - How is that I still buy so much?

[supermother]

You can't gerneralise with men. Some are stricter with money than others and same with women.

Some families spend a lot of time shopping at weekends. It's the new religion in a sense. The shopping mall as substitute church etc.

I just don't like it so I virtually never don't do it. Others adore it, their life's aim and to an extent you pass those values to your children.

Occasionally I am in a shop with children. I was in a petrol station with a child two days ago and was happy to buy him some stuff there but it's quite rare.

More important is the issue of some parents not being able to say no to a child. Saying no is one of the most valuable gifts you give them, more precious than a trolley load of consumer goods.

[Lazy Mummy]

My husband seems to be more of a pushover than I am when it comes to buying things. I've always attributed it to the fact that he's American, I'm British and that the values he grew up with are more materialistic than the ones I grew up with (eg, looking at sheer volume of toys, books, stuff his family had as children compared to my family). I dislike it immensely, but it's so pernicious it's hard to avoid (even if you want to), especially when you live in such a flippin' materialistic culture.

(I don't do pester power v. often but as child is still pre-school age, can get away with it. Fully expect this to change in about 2 years time).

[Debbie]

I do so agree with you Sue. I think window shopping and helping the kids understand they can look but have to wait until birthdays, Christmas is a great lesson for them and helps to crystalise what they really want, not what just takes their fancy on the day. Also agree that sometimes the things that look tacky or stupid to us give a huge amount of pleasure and are treasured by them. I try to teach them about budgeting in a simple way and that they can only spend the money once and have to think if they really want it.

Having them wait for things until a birthday is also great as when they do get it they really appreciate it and value it.

On the whole cutsy girl asking Daddy, that wouldn't cut any mustard in this house. My husband is much stricter with our girls than I am and it simply would not work. I think it is healthy that girls have a different relationship with their father than with their mother and that it's why its so important for children to have both parents raise them to understand those differences and benefit from them.

[KM]

MumOfTwo, can you email me on kskrpe@hotmail.com?
Have some good news I want to share.

[Daisy]

The discussion about using feminine wiles to get one's own way with men reminded me of the rather disturbing book Fascinating Womanhood by Helen Andelin.

I think my hubby actually gives in less than I do to our little girls wants and whines.

[mumoftwo]

I don't like children acting cute either and have no time for it. However, I think it's a little naive to suggest that girls shouldn't or don't relate differently to their fathers; this father-daughter bond was not the dynamic in my own family and I find it strange, but there is a fair bit of hero-worshipping of my husband in this house and this seems to have happened naturally and to me isn't problematic. My girls don't consciously bat their eyelashes at him, that's too obvious (plus I don't model this type of behaviour myself!) but they think daddy is heroic and special (and who am I to disillusion them!) as well as a bit grumpy on occasions. I do worry they won't find anyone to match up to their dad (I have loads of friends who are daddies girls), but I think that's a preferable problem than having a difficult relationship with your father. Plus I think trying to maintain a good, and perhaps more realistic, mother-daughter relationship as a constant is perhaps a necessary counter to any idealisation!

As for feminine wiles in adults, overt uses of sexuality to get something are usually distateful. But being charming, open and very mildly flirtatious on the odd occasion; is that really so terrible?!

[Sue]

MOT: I am a lot harder than my husband who does tend to get suckered in by his two daughters pleading with him in that cutesy way girls have with their daddies (and I hate!)

- Please don't take my comment the wrong way (!!!), BUT, is it worth pointing out to your husband that when a female 'cajoles' a man into spending money on her, if she were an adult, there would be a very contemptuous name for her (and I'd better not say it, after the debate on the abortion thread about demeaning words for females!!!!).

OBVIOUSLY it's not in the same extent, BUT, there is a similar principle at work here - using 'feminine wiles' whatever the wiles and however young the female and whoever the male is, is NOT the behaviour any woman can surely condone??!!

Ask your husband whether he'd like to see his daughters, as teens and adults, using the same tactics on other men!!!!! The danger (in principle, I hasten to say!) is that a female who was 'Daddy's little princess' will end up being 'SugarDaddy's little princess-in-bed' (whether as mistress or trophy wife doesn't make much essential difference) one day....

Many apologies if this sounds offensive, but I do agree I don't like the idea of little girls 'playing up' to 'Daddy' (though since I don't have daughters I'm probably more intolerant)(and probably equally blnd to the 'son-equivalent' of boys getting their dad to buy them pricey sporting kit because the dad's like to see their sons 'as themselves when young' etc etc.)

(Also, I have to confess I've seen boy children shamelessly getting round their mums, too!)(though not mine, ho ho!)

[M]

The nursery thread was interesting and reminded me of an episode of Friends, where the character Ross couldn't deal with the impossibly sunny male nanny, who did puppet shows and sang silly songs to entertain his baby.

I do agree that it was a thought provoking thread and did make me think about things again, which is what I mainly enjoy about this site.

[KM]

Can I just jump up and apologise for not posting - there's no conspiracy, just an awful lot of stuff is happening in real life to me this week so I am here in spirit but not pontificating, so to speak...

[mumoftwo]

M, I've been posting, but making sure I don't say anything very much!!! Not sure that's the answer, but in the absence of said code of conduct, and strange disappearing threads, I'm happy with that level of response. I did genuinely think that thread was great, it's not often I am surprised by people's responses, usually we fall into the same grooves over abortion, staying home/working outside home, commercialisation etc, we've been round the block a few times with them, but the very deep-seated recoiling of some people from the notion of male carers highlighted something new (or perhaps as old as the hills) for me.

[M]

Yes, MumofTwo, I've been toying with the idea of posting a similar message, particularly as a lot of the regulars have not posted since J asked about the Code of Conduct.

[mumoftwo]

Mine are young and so a 'yes, that does look lovely, no, we aren't going to buy it' suffices. I am a lot harder than my husband who does tend to get suckered in by his two daughters pleading with him in that cutesy way girls have with their daddies (and I hate!)

As for the disappearance of the (much more interesting) men and child-care thread, of course there is no obligation, but a quick notice would have been good saying 'the post on men and child-care has been removed, thanks for all your contributions, we will definitely return to this topic at a later date' or something like that. It's quite strange to just pull it and pretend it didn't exist- a little communication often goes a long way especially after the rather rocky road this blog has travelled recently. Just a thought.

[fbtoast]

requiring legislation just to fill in the gap that is left by poor parenting is just another step in the total nannification of the British people

[Sue]

I think an important life lesson for children is to learn the pleasure of window-shopping! That it's fun to take a look around a toyshop, asssess the goodies on offer, and then maybe plan which one you might like to have, and then think ahead to when it might be acquirable, for a birthday, treat, and so on.

I think our society's current predelicton for instant gratification is not psychoglically healthy, the notion that we can always have whatever we want whenever we want it (great for marketers, not for consumers!) (though, yes, the occasional impulse buy is very gratifying, I'll admit!).

I think it's also important that children grow up knowing they don't always 'get something', and that 'today we're not buying anything, we're just looking' is part of life. I've known some highly acquisitive children in my time (not mine, obviously...!!!!)(ho ho!), and it's not nice to see at all.

On the other hand, especially as they grow a bit older past their pre-school years, I think adults really do need to see the world through their eyes when it comes to toys. As an adult we can look at some new toy and think 'cheap, overpriced tat' (same way I look at designer handbags, I must say!)(though sometimes it's just overpriced, rather than tat!) but we really do have to see it as the intensely desirable object that our children see them as. I've been through so many 'crazes' with mine - from Pokemon (they want HOW MUCH for a stupid pack of CARDS????!) to Bayblades and Thudnerbirds and Transformers etc etc etc, but they really, REALLY got vast amounts of pleasure out of them! Just as, now they are older, it's X-box games etc (despite my "FIFTY POUNDS for a stupid DISK????).

However, one thing I think we do have to draw the line at as parents, and that is toys/games we disapprove of for reasons such as sex and violence. I'm certainly relieved I don't have girly 'Bratz battles' to fight, and so far I have won the 'No, Grant Theft Auto is a NASTY game even for adults, and you should NEVER play it however old you are' argument!)(not that mine, thankfully, evince any desire for it, or any other ultraviolent or horror-based game.)(so far...)

[Gipsy]

oh goodness SM there is a middle ground! It is rather a high ideal to take that attitude that we should all be shop free or be dammed to the consequences.

I loathe shopping, but it is unavoidable, you just can't do everything online. Also, there are things I do like doing, like popping in to the supermarket to pick up a couple of little items as I've suddenly felt like doing X or Y for dinner, or browsing for fresh veges at the market, or having a look to see what delights my local health food shop has come up with.

I would say we spend hardly any time shopping, and we watch mostly Cbeebies, and yet son has already picked up this I want I want thing. I think it is all about pushing the boundries, which children seem pre-programmed to do, and helping them deal with that is a good way of letting them learn to eventually be healthy adults.

That also means listening to them. Because, as has been pointed out, pester power is a good thing as well as a bad thing. To learn how to use it correctly is the key. So, when a child starts using it to encourage recycling, for example, and the parents listen and act on that, they're empowering their children, encouraging a sense of well being and self esteem, and allowing them to learn that the world can be changed for good if you're willing to stand up and act on your principles.

[supermother]

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 which have just replaced large parts of the Trade Descriptions Act and other things are relevant to advertising to children.schedule 1 para 28 prohibits "including in an advertisement a direct exhortation to children to buy advertised products or persuade their parents or other adults to buy advertised products for them".

This is supposed to mean ads such as the old "don't forget the fruit gums mum" would now be illegal but might even be wider than that. The ad must not directly exhort the parent to buy so I suppose if it's indirect it's fine although under the new law you have to be particularly careful how you do market to vulnerable groups such as children.

I combat pester power by virtually never taking a child into a shop which seems to work pretty well. If their life is parks, gardens, woods, school and home and no shops then I don't think pestering except for on line purchases I suppose, is an issue. If mummy and daddy spend all weekend going round shops buying stuff because their own ethos is that to spend is good then obviously their children will have the same values - nothing necessarily wrong with that, many an economists wants consumers to spend spend spend but it certainly means you get more consumerist children.

[Sue]

Yes, I agree with the point about them doing it with their own money! When they are very little I guess you can tell them that they have 'ten pounds a month' or whatever your allowance for them is, and it's up to them what they spend it on!

Overall, I'd probaby, in any referendum, vote for banning TV ads, just to be on the safe side, but I think it is up to parents to teach their children about the general wickedness of the marketing industry (!!!!) from an early age, and warn them that 'out there' are a lot of people after their hard earned money.

Once they start earning their own money, of course, eg, working in supermarkets duruing the hols, I think they wise up even more. They can then absolutely work out the 'labour value' of what they want - eg, ten hours work at a fiver an hour to buy a new X-box game, etc (assuming no tax of course!)

I also agree that 'eco-pester power' can be good for lazy parents as well.....

[Gipsy]

Pester power and wasting money on items where you've fallen for the hype is as old as the hills and will no doubt continue. And parents will continue to have to say no.

[DELILAH]

This is where pocket-money comes into its own. No substitute for the moment when Junior blows three week's savings on a must-have article that turns out to be a more nicely-packaged version of something s/he could have got at the dollar store. Or generally not as glamarous or interesting as it was made to look on screen.

My personal scales-from-eyes moment was an expensive and highly-accessorised Pet Rock that failed to be remotely interesting to me or any of my friends, despite the happy parties that always seemed to surround it on screen.

My children have each had equally ridiculous rites of passage, which we laugh about now. But I also have to report that they have saved up and shelled out for the most awful junk, and ended up keeping it and loving it for years. Horrible plastic dinosaurs in eggs, disgusting ponies with braidable hair, and so on.

Just let them do it with their money, not yours.

[Tara@From Dawn Till Rusk]

I have absolutely no problems with adverts and, like other posters here, I just say no and explain why not. My children are only young though (under 6) and haven't really come up against peer pressure yet which I dread more.
To be honest, the couple of things they have given an 'ooo' and an 'aah' to I've saved up for birthday present ideas when I don't know what they really want.

[Daisy]

I didn't really sell my blog very well there did I? No wonder that advertising agency didn't renew my contract those years ago!! :)

I remember an argument with my eldest girl, who's six. She insisted that we buy something because a particular advert told her we were you know, so not cool without it - though she didn't use the word 'cool' because apparently only old people use that word now. I patiently explained all about adverts and how they are made to convince us to buy things we don't necessarily need and the seductive tactics used. She disdainfully disagreed with a roll of the eyes, I was quite patently wrong and the advert was right.

[M]

Looking forward to it, Daisy!

[M]

Mr Potarto, some of us were talking about the nursery thread and Sue suggested we continue it on there, if anyone wanted to.

I think on pester power, it's partly why I never took my children to shops at a young age and why I didn't have a television until they were older. I also think it's funny when they think they have to have something and learn it's not as good as it looks. Mind you, that happens to me sometimes, too.

[Daisy]

M

It's not got much on it yet, I'm a newbie.

http://oh-another-thing.blogspot.com

Come and visit!

Daisy

[Mr Potarto]

I used to think adverts that are aimed at children should be banned, but now I have children I'm a lot more relaxed. I just say, "no". Sometimes I even say, "yes".

On a separate issue, what happened to "A mum objects to a male staffer at her nursery"? Deleting an article and all the comments without even a place-holder to explain why you removed it is a bit disappointing. Is it worth taking the time to join in your debates if our comments are going to be binned without a word?

[M]

Daisy, tell us about your blog!

[Daisy]

I dunno, is it not just that parents are trying to find a scapegoat for the fact that they just can't say no?

Adults, and I mused about this on my own blog the other day, are affected greatly by adverts themselves. Like the hoo-hah about using very skinny models in fashion and advertising which induces anorexia, low self-esteem and weight issues in even adult women. So perhaps we should ban all adverts, they don't seem to do us any good and make us spend lots of money.

Daisy