Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site grkermi.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!grkermi!andrew
From: andrew@grkermi.UUCP (Andrew W. Rogers)
Newsgroups: net.kids
Subject: Re: Precocious Brand Loyalty
Message-ID: <597@grkermi.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 3-Sep-85 09:18:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: grkermi.597
Posted: Tue Sep  3 09:18:45 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Sep-85 01:04:12 EDT
References: <365@scirtp.UUCP>
Reply-To: andrew@grkermi.UUCP (Andrew W. Rogers)
Distribution: net
Organization: GenRad, Inc., Concord, Mass.
Lines: 84
Summary: 

In article <365@scirtp.UUCP> todd@scirtp.UUCP (Todd Jones) writes:
>WHAT'S A FATHER TO DO????????????????????????
>
>I have tried to co-raise my son to be sensible and prudent.
>I have tried to teach him that the value of something may
>not be coincident with a price tag, or may not even be
>monetary.

Good for you!  It's a losing battle in the 80's, though (as I'm sure you're
finding out)...

>So why is he exhibiting staunch brand loyalties at age 4?
>He insists on "Wrangler" brand jeans, because "Dad, you
>can do adventure in them." I've tried reasoning with him,
>but he admits that even if I could prove that adventure
>is, in fact, possible in generic clothing, he would prefer
>the "Wrangler" brand.

(Disclaimer:  I don't have any kids, although I once was one.)

I don't think this is anything new.  I was pretty much the same way at that
age - only I was loyal to products kids obviously never use!  My parents
tell me that I'd raise hell in the supermarket if they bought any brand
of laundry detergent other than Tide!  

>I didn't shop at thrift shops during my youth and adolesence
>(even now on occasion) just to raise a budding Yuppie!

Read _Ad Week_ to see what a goldmine kids like yours are, and how actively
they're being wooed!  "Yuppie Puppies" (gag) is the latest buzzword among the
Madison Avenue types, who seem to be taking a double-barreled approach to
hawking this crap:  Get the kids to want it, and get the parents to feel
guilty (or inadequate) unless they buy it.

>Is it peer influence?  Is he succumbing to Madison Avenue hype? 

Probably the latter, although don't discount the former (especially with
fad items such as Michael Jackson or Cabbage Patch Kids).  The market
researchers would love to discover the secret of inciting the kind of
peer pressure that turns a moderately successful product into a true fad.

>Is it only a matter of time before he tells me to
>get my hair cut and buy a BMW?  

This has nothing to do with your question, but I thought someone might find it
amusing:  Researchers a few years ago asked a Sunday school class to describe
the car that God drives.  Consensus:  God drives a white Ford Thunderbird with
CB radio, speakers on the rear deck, and vanity plates reading "GOD".  
(_AutoWeek_, circa 1981).

>What if all this leads to him becoming...>GASP< a Republican?!?!?!?!?!?

Ronald Reagan is phenomenally popular among the pre-school and grade-school 
set.  Maybe it's his grandfatherly image (I had a senile grandfather once), or
maybe they're confusing him with Ronald McDonald (tip: RMcD makes more sense.)

Speaking of Republicans... if they're as "pro-family" as they claim to be,
then why are they so vehemently opposed to the efforts of groups such as
Action for Children's Television to force advertisers to clean up their act?

>If he asks for Calvin Klein or Jordache designer clothes,
>I'm committing suicide!!! 

Today (9/3)'s Boston Globe has an interesting editorial ("Born to shop") on
the above subject.  Excerpts:

"Life has gotten much more compilcated since the designers and the department
stores joined forces to raise the 'fashion IQ' - as the advertisers call it.
	.
	.
	.
It used to be that children started thinking about clothes at the onset of
adolescence.  Now, elementary school children, and even pre-schoolers, make
demands in store aisles and dressing rooms.  These pint-sized shoppers know
their brand names and their labels.

...the newfound blurring of generational fashion lines is a distasteful step
backward - and an expensive one at that."

(The above editorial neglected to state whether or not the Globe would attempt
to take the lead in ameliorating this deplorable situation by hereafter
refusing to accept such advertising.)  :-)

AWR