What's Behind Candy Maker Mars' Pledge to No Longer Market to Kids Under 12

I intermittently participate in an online forum sponsored by Advertising Age called “Soflow.”

Yesterday, a Soflow member reported that candy-maker giant Mars recently announced that it will no longer market to kids younger than 12. He then said, “I can hear the stocks falling now. Is taking the "moral" high ground with respect to a product more desirable than the "bottom line"?

I don’t think Mars’ moral declaration will adversely affect its bottom. In fact, I would not be surprised if they took that action to help the bottom line through a higher topline. I wrote the following response.

A hard truth – a hard one because it works against so many of us in the marketing game – is that to advertise to children as it most typically is done is to exploit them their undeveloped minds. The frontal lobes, which support executive functions (the ability to analyze information, project outcomes, and understand why), are not completely formed until around the age of seven. Even by the middle or late teen age years the brain’s development remains incomplete. Recent research indicates that brain development is not complete until the early 20s.

Teens do not cognitively and emotionally operate on a par with adults. In comparison with adult brains, teen brains are relatively poor in projecting adverse outcomes. This is the source of the youthful sense of invulnerability. While the teen brain does quite well in projecting pleasurable outcomes, it doesn’t do so well in projecting painful outcomes. This is why advertising that associates intense pleasure with a product is not easily overcome by preachments about potentially harmful outcomes in either using the product (say cigarettes) or misusing a product (say candy).

Publicly traded candy makers must grow sales to remain healthy on Wall Street. Therefore they have a strong incentive to rationalize the use of seductive advertising to those who are neuronally ill-equipped to resist it, namely children in this context. To the degree they might accept that kids are not great decision-makers when a candy jar is within reach, they will bail out of responsibility by saying its up to kids’ parents to control what their kids eat.

I do not have a lot of faith in the sincerity of Mars' claim that it will no longer market to kids under 12. In the first place, because kids under 12 are big-time into role models as a part of developing their own identities, one can ostensibly be advertising to older kids or adults and still be reaching the under-12-age group. I think Mars' main objective here is to make parents feel better about the company because it's acting (ostensibly) socially responsible.

All this reminds me of Philip Morris's anti-smoking ads aimed at the under-18. Recent research has indicated these ads (that might make adults feel better about Philip Morris) actually inspire some teens to take smoking. Philip Morris is trying to have it both ways: come off as socially responsible, while continuing to attract new customers under the age of 18.

Full measure of moral rectitude cannot be taken by considering an action outside of itws context. What is the context for Mars' ostensibly moral decision to not market to kids under 12?