Major inuence factors in childrens consumer socialization

Michael J. Dotson and Eva M. Hyatt

Marketing Department, Walker College of Business, Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina, USA
Abstract Purpose The purpose of this paper is to rst provide an overview of childrens spending power, media exposure, and identication with brand names in the usa along with an updated overview of the major ndings in the consumer socialization literature, and to then provide an empirical explanation of how the consumer socialization process works with todays children. Design/methodology/approach Based on a survey administered to 663 children, a factor analysis was performed on items designed to measure young peoples attitudes toward, and interaction with, the various consumer socialization agents and marketplace factors, including shopping and media usage behavior. Findings Five major consumer socialization inuence factors emerged: irrational social inuence, importance of television, familial inuence, shopping importance, and brand importance; and were used as dependent variables in subsequent analyses looking at the effects of a number of independent variables. Results indicate that the relative impacts of the various consumer socialization inuence factors do vary according to the childs gender, age, amount of spending money available, amount of television viewing, and how he/she spends time after school. Originality/value These results are important to practitioners because they show that the traditional consumer socialization models may apply differently to children with different demographics and lifestyle characteristics. Keywords Consumers, Socialization, Advertising, Children (age groups), Brands Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executive readers can be found at the end of this article.

on childrens marketplace-related attitudes? This paper provides some much-needed empirical answers to these and other questions.

Introduction
Despite the increasing spending power and actual purchases of children over the past decade (McNeal, 1999), they prove to be an elusive market for advertisers and marketers. Their likes and dislikes change faster than any consumer group (Public Broadcasting Service, 1999). While children nd security in attaching themselves to an object a pillow, a blanket, a store, a brand their curiosity has not yet been suppressed, so they do turn their attention to other objects, including other brands (McNeal, 1999). To complicate the dynamics of the childrens market further, there have been dramatic changes in households and in media exposure in recent years. There is little empirical research investigating the factors affecting childrens attitudes toward the marketplace and their consumer behavior. What are the major inuences on whether or not children are brand loyal? Who do children talk to about products they have and would like to have? What role do television ads play? What do children like about shopping? What effects do variables such as age, gender, amount of spending money, and interaction with adults have
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0736-3761.htm

Childrens spending power

Childrens direct spending of their own money in the USA has steadily increased for the past three decades, and has tripled in the 1990s. Preadolescent children ages four to 12 years spent $2.2 billion in 1968, $4.2 billion in 1984, $17.1 billion in 1994, and over $40 billion in 2002. Preadolescent childrens direct buying power is expected to exceed $51.8 billion by 2006. Older children (12-19) spent $155 billion of their own money in 2001. (The Center for a New American Dream, 2002). Childrens huge increase in spending is characteristic of developed nations around the world. This sharp increase in the last decade is due to the arrival of Generation Y, those children born (mostly to Baby Boomers) in the USA between 1979 and 1994. The Gen Y cohort rivals the baby boom in size at 60 million strong (Neuborne, 1999). One in nine US high school students has a credit card cosigned by parents (Neuborne, 1999). These gures do not even tap into the huge inuence children have on their parents purchases. Raised in dual income and single parent households, children are deeply involved in family purchases, be they groceries or a new car (Neuborne, 1999, p. 86). In 2000, US children 12 years and under inuenced $500 billion in family purchases, up from $188 billion in 1997 (The Center for a New American Dream, 2002). Yet even with all this growth in young peoples shopping and buying, childrens relationships with products, such as how they form attachments to products or their perceptions of brand value, appears to be a relatively unexplored area (Chandler and Heinzerling, 1999). This 35

Journal of Consumer Marketing 22/1 (2005) 35 42 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0736-3761] [DOI 10.1108/07363760510576536]

Major inuence factors in childrens consumer socialization Michael J. Dotson and Eva M. Hyatt

Journal of Consumer Marketing Volume 22 Number 1 2005 35 42

statement is especially true of empirical (versus anecdotal) research.

Childrens media exposure

In the USA, 47 percent of children ages two to 18 years have a television set in their bedrooms (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2001). A total of 75 percent of American teens have a television in their rooms, and 50 percent have their own PC on which they spend approximately two hours per day online (Public Broadcasting Service, 1999). On a typical day, children ages two to 18 years spend on average of 5.5 hours using media, including television, print, computer games and the internet (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2001). Most children watch three to four hours of television per day; this is the number one after-school activity for six to 17 year olds (Center for Media Education, 2002). This translates into about 1,500 hours in front of the television per year (as compared to 900 hours in the classroom), with each child viewing 20,000 television commercials per year, or 55 commercials per day (The Center for a New American Dream, 2002). Children who watch four or more hours of television a day are more likely to believe advertising claims than children who watch less than four hours of television per day (Center for Media Education, 2002). Advertisers who target children have three main objectives: to directly seek children as customers, to work indirectly on parents through childrens pester power, and/or to imprint the younger generation with positive brand associations (Paul, 2002). There is an interesting anomaly in the media choices confronting teens. On the one hand, many experts suggest that the media has become increasingly fragmented, resulting in a greater number of programming choices and over 200 magazines targeted at children (Dotson and Hyatt, 2000). While there are indeed more media options, these options are primarily controlled by ve organizations: Rupert Murdocks Newscorp, Disney, AOL Time-Warner, Universal Vivendi and Viacom. Collectively, these organizations control four of the ve major music companies, the major lm studios, all television networks, all of the television stations in the ten largest markets, and most of the major cable systems. Viacom, for example, owns CBS, MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon, Simon and Schuster Publishing, Paramount Studios, Blockbuster Video, etc. Some have suggested that the MTV network is nothing more than an uninterrupted array of promotional messages. Control of these various media companies provides the potential for cross-promotional opportunities (Public Broadcasting Service, 1999). This consolidation likely guarantees that consumers in general, and teens in particular, will almost never be out of range of a commercial message (Belch and Belch, 2004).

brand products (Center for a New American Dream, 2002). Wherever children go, from supermarkets to fast-food restaurants to toy stores to clothing stores, they will nd licensed characters they know from their hours of daily television viewing (Wechsler, 1997a). Childrens toys are starting to carry product placements; for example, certain Barbie dolls come with Coca Cola accessories (National Institute on Media and the Family, 2002). For many children, it is not buying a pair of jeans, but buying GAP or Tommy Hilger or Abercrombie & Fitch. This barrage of brand names offers the irresistible promise of instant cool, particularly for teenagers (Wechsler, 1997a, p.64). Peer-topeer marketing, which uses volunteers or inuencers to push a particular brand, is used by teen clothing companies, among others, to create articial communities (Wolff, 2003). The extent to which a child becomes brand loyal appears to be a function of the interaction of two things: familiarity and marketing stimuli. Such loyalty results from the day-to-day visibility of the product, which comes from the observation of parents brand usage, exposure to brands in the media, exposure to other childrens environments, and even in-school exposure to branded products and sponsorships (Paul, 2002). For example, a recent study found that the most heavily advertised brands of beer in 1998 and 1999 in the USA had the highest rates of brand awareness, brand preference, brand usage and brand loyalty among junior and senior high school students (Rushkoff, 2000). Successful brand building among children can carry over into adulthood, as the co-branded Tonka edition of the Ford F-150 attests. Some rms are attempting to create a bridge between parent and child. For example, Harley Davidson is capitalizing on the legendary devotion of its customers by extending parents affection for the brand to their children through branded rattles, baby blankets, toy motorbikes, clothing and helmets in the effort to imprint a positive memory of the brand and logo in the younger generation (Paul, 2002).

Consumer socialization: then and now

Early research on consumer socialization consistently shows that there are three major socialization agents that inuence childrens consumer behavior. These are parents, peers, and mass media primarily television (Ward, 1974; Moschis and Moore, 1979). According to these early studies, parents play the dominant inuence role until the child reaches adolescence, when peers become the favored source of information (Moschis and Moore, 1980). Televisions inuence is more steady, but less important in this process. Parents are the main source of rational inuence on children, with peers and media being primarily irrational inuences (Moschis and Churchill, 1978). More recent research on consumer socialization processes recommends that these traditional assumptions of this most widely-used consumer socialization model (Moschis and Churchill, 1978) need to be reinvestigated (Dotson and Hyatt, 1994; 2000). More specically, pre-adolescent children are playing a greater role in household decision making and are making more of their own independent purchases at earlier ages (McNeal and Yeh, 1993). Along with the drastic changes in media usage patterns and households, these recent trends indicate a need for updated empirical consumer socialization research. We propose here that the various sources of commercial inuence 36

Children and brands

A brand serves to add dimensions to a product to differentiate it in some way from other products designed to satisfy the same need (Keller, 1998). The strength of brands is measured by the price differential consumers are willing to pay over other products in the same category (Grassl, 1999). Research suggests that as early as six months of age, babies are forming mental images of corporate logos and mascots (McNeal and Yeh, 1993). At three years of age, one out of ve American children are already making direct requests for specic name-

Major inuence factors in childrens consumer socialization Michael J. Dotson and Eva M. Hyatt

Journal of Consumer Marketing Volume 22 Number 1 2005 35 42

on the consumer socialization process be examined in more detail. This is especially true since children today spend more time in commercial settings than ever, such as shopping in stores, and are surrounded by commercial messages in a variety of forms (even at school in so-called educational formats) (Wechsler, 1997b). Shopping, as a source of inuence on young consumers, has never been examined empirically, yet appears to be a major activity for children. The average tenyear-old goes shopping 250 times per year, or approximately ve times per week (Dotson and Hyatt, 1994). Children list it as their second favorite after-school activity, after watching television (Schulman and Clancy, 1992). Television, still an important part of media inuence on children, is itself becoming less monolithic and increasingly more fragmented, targeting more specialized segments, not the least important of which are children (Shimp, 2000). Another potentially strong inuence on childrens marketplace behavior is the more pronounced role, described earlier, that brands are playing in their daily lives. The increased presence of brand names in our society has led to heightened brand awareness and preference among children at earlier ages. Not only are children exposed to more commercial hype in their daily lives, but also they are more likely to be surrounded by irrational sources of inuence at earlier ages. In addition to spending less time with parents and more time with peers (Dotson and Hyatt, 1994), children are increasingly affected by peer pressure regarding popular brands. This is accompanied by celebrity endorsements with their favorite sports, music and entertainment stars pitching well-known name brand products. A good example of this is the bad boy pitch which includes images from popular entertainment like DMX and Eminem. Children want socially conspicuous products as an afrmation of their individuality, in order to make a statement (Public Broadcasting Service, 1999). This could include the latest fad or trend available in the nearest Hot Topics store (www.hottopics.com). All of these factors are playing a more important part in the consumer socialization process, yet have not been specically investigated empirically.

Method
Questionnaire The questionnaire administered consists of 67 ve-point Likert-type items that were designed to measure young peoples attitudes toward, and interaction with, the various consumer socialization agents and marketplace factors, including shopping and media usage behavior. To provide respondents with a frame of reference, the questions referred to contexts involving clothing. For example: I pay attention to the brand names of clothes when I go shopping. The questionnaire also includes a set of descriptive measures including: age, gender, amount of spending money, who the respondents live with, how they spend their afternoons after school, and amount of television viewing. The instrument was administered to 663 students in grades 4-11 at several schools located in rural, urban and suburban areas in a Southeastern state. The sample consisted of 316 females and 346 males. The childrens ages ranged from eight to 16 years, with the mean age being 12.3 years. The children watch an average of 16 hours of television per week, and 68.8 percent of the children receive a regular allowance. 37

Derivation of dependent variables The 67 Likert-type items were subjected to factor analysis using varimax orthogonal rotation in order to separate out the underlying dimensions of the respondents shopping and marketplace behavior and attitudes. A nine-factor solution emerged using only factors having eigenvalues greater than 1.0. Reliability analysis was conducted on each factor and only those factors with Cronbachs alpha levels greater than 0.6 (according to the recommendation of Nunnally (1967)) were included in the subsequent analysis. A list of the variables included in each of the ve nal factors, along with their reliability coefcients is shown below: (1) PEER (a 0:86): . It bothers me when my friends have something I dont have. . My parents let me buy the brand of shoes I want. . I like commercials with sports stars. . It is important for me to t in with my friends. . I buy the same brands as my friends. . What my friends think is more important than what my parents think. . I like to wear what my friends are wearing. . I know how to get my parents to buy me what I want. . Being popular is important. . Successful people wear name brands. (2) TV (a 0:81): . I always watch TV after school. . Most TV ads are cool. . Watching TV is fun. . Watching TV is an important part of my life. . I learn a lot from watching TV. . TV ads tell the truth about products. (3) PARENTS (a 0:79): . I make buying decisions on items for the whole family. . Low price is more important than brand name when buying clothes. . My parents and I agree on what I should wear. . My parents choose the clothes they buy for me. . I think my parents should have a say in what I buy. . I like to go shopping with my parents. . What my parents think is more important than what my friends think. . I buy the same brands as my parents. . I value my parents opinions on what I buy. . I talk to my parents about products. (4) SHOP (a 0:72): . I like to shop in stores that play cool music. . I have favorite stores at which to shop. . I like to shop with my friends. . I like to shop in a store thats not crowded. . When it comes to clothes, I usually know what I want to buy before I go shopping. . I dont like salespeople to bother me when Im shopping. (5) BRAND (a 0:74): . I like to wear certain brands of clothes. . I think having name brand clothes is important. . I pay attention to brand names of clothes when I go shopping. . I like wearing clothes with the brand name showing. The emerging ve inuence factors (i.e. the ve dependent variables in this study) each distinctly deal with an element of

Major inuence factors in childrens consumer socialization Michael J. Dotson and Eva M. Hyatt

Journal of Consumer Marketing Volume 22 Number 1 2005 35 42

childrens material lives. The rst variable, which we call irrational social inuence (PEER), is primarily a measure of the importance of social interaction, especially with peers, dealing with marketplace activities. This inuence tends to be irrational, value expressive and normative in nature. This factor taps into the various commercial cues that children are receiving from their surrounding social environment. The second variable, which we call the importance of television (TV), measures the degree to which children attend to and like various aspects of the television experience. It taps into both amount of television viewing and how much the children are getting out of watching television. The third variable, which we call familial/parental inuence (PARENTS), measures the more rational elements of social inuence. It focuses on the role of parents in the consumer socialization process. It implies a level of control placed on the children by their parents regarding their marketplace behaviors. The fourth variable, which we call marketplace/shopping importance (SHOP), measures the level of enjoyment and centrality of the shopping experience in children lives. It gets at how much the marketplace factors into their social lives and measures the degree of shopping-related communication. Finally, the fth variable, which we call brand importance (BRAND), measures the importance of brand names in childrens clothes buying. These ve factors together reect the major socialization agents found in many earlier studies to be central in the consumer socialization process that children undergo. Research questions The following research questions deal with differences in the above sources of social inuence based on gender, amount of spending money, after-school behavior, age, and amount of television viewing of the children: RQ1. Do the different inuence factors vary by gender? The rst area of inquiry deals with gender differences. Previous research shows that boys are exposed to slightly more media per day than girls, with boys spending 5 hours and 37 minutes per day and girls spending 5 hours and 19 minutes per day using various forms of media. Also, since children in general are more inuenced by peers as they enter adolescence (Roedder-John, 1999), girls may experience more peer inuence at earlier ages than boys since girls enter puberty earlier than boys. RQ2. Does a greater availability of spending money impact the various inuence factors? The second area of inquiry deals with how much spending money children have and how that relates to the inuences on their marketplace behavior. Children today have more spending money than ever on average, but little research exists that shows the relationship between how much spending money children have and how they differ regarding the consumer socialization process. Children with more money are likely to shop more, therefore, gaining greater exposure to marketing stimuli. Shopping and brand names are likely to play a more important role in their lives. There is evidence from the classication question questions in this study that the more spending money children have, the more brand conscious they are and the more they favor trendy designer brands such as Guess and Calvin Klein over brands such as Levis and Lee (chi-square 68:27, p , 0:004). 38

RQ3. What relationship does how a child spends his/her afternoons have with the relative impact of the various inuence factors? Children who are with one of their parents after school will more likely go shopping with their parent(s) more often than other children, and may have the opportunity to learn from their parents more. Children from dual income households and from single-parent households spend less time interacting with their parents and, in many cases, spend more time interacting with peers. Latchkey children who stay home alone until their parents come home have less social interaction overall, and most likely are exposed to more hours of media per day. Children who go to some sort of after school program have more social interaction with peers and may be more strongly inuenced by their friends (Dotson and Hyatt, 2000). RQ4. As children get older, does the relative inuence of the various consumer socialization factors change? Research shows that younger children spend more time with family and older children spend more time with peers (Zeijl et al., 2000). Adolescents have more inuence than younger children on household consumer decision making overall. In nontraditional households, preadolescent children are twice as likely to inuence household purchase decisions than in traditional households (Labrecque and Ricard, 2001). As children get older, they have a better understanding of media, yet watching television is listed as the number one favorite after-school activity for six to 17 year olds (Center for Media Education, 2002). It is likely that irrational social inuence will increase with age, but media inuence may moderate. RQ5. Does the amount of television viewing children engage in affect the relative inuence of the various consumer socialization factors? The last area of inquiry deals with the relationship between amount of television watched and the consumer socialization factors. Children who watch four or more hours of television a day are more likely to believe advertising claims, to spend less time on school work, and to play less well with friends than children who watch television less often (Center for Media Education, 2002). Children who watch a lot of television want more toys seen in advertisements and eat more advertised food than those who do not watch as much television (National Institute on Media and the Family, 2002). Children who use the most media tend to be the least contented overall as well (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2001). It appears that as media usage increases it becomes an overriding inuence on childrens consumer socialization.

Results
RQ1 asks whether the inuence factors vary by gender. As expected, girls score higher on the irrational social inuence factor (PEER), with the girlsmean score being 49.59 and the boys mean score being 47.81 (t 2:05, p 0:041). Boys, on the other hand, are more inuenced by television (TV) with a mean of 30.18 compared to 25.35 for the girls (t 10:08, p 0:000). On the more rational parental inuence factor (PARENTS) girls score higher, with a mean of 32.19 compared to the boys mean of 29.74 (t 4:16, p 0:000). On the shopping variable (SHOP), girls outscore boys 33.06 to 29.0 (t 8:56, p 0:000). There is no signicant difference between boys and girls on the inuence of brands

Major inuence factors in childrens consumer socialization Michael J. Dotson and Eva M. Hyatt

Journal of Consumer Marketing Volume 22 Number 1 2005 35 42

(BRAND). However, analysis of individual variables shows that girls are more likely than boys to say that certain brands are their favorite because their friends wear them. Boys on the other hand are more likely than girls to say that certain brands are their favorite because they last longer (Chisquare 10:56, p 0:032). These results show that the relative impacts of the various sources of social inuence do indeed vary by gender. It looks like girls are more inuenced by interpersonal interactions, with friends and parents, and boys are more inuenced by non-personal communication. This corresponds with other gender-related ndings. In fact, in our sample, boys watch more television than girls. Boys were found to watch roughly 3.5 hours more per week than girls (17.64 versus 14.26 hours; t 2:97, p , 0:003). This goes along with the national statistics dealing with media usage in general in which boys were found to spend 37.59 hours per week and girls spend 36.53 hours attending to media. It is important to note that, looking at the variables used to measure TV in this study, the greater impact of television in boys lives goes beyond the mere number of hours spent viewing it. RQ2 focuses on the relationship between the amount of spending money available to children and the relative impact of the sources of social inuence. Spending money in this analysis includes all self-reported gift money, allowances, and wages/payments for work. In our sample, 11 percent receive $0-9 per week, 20.6 percent receive $10-20 per week, 20.4 percent receive $21-30 per week, 16.9 percent receive $31-40 per week, 15.1 percent receive $41-50 per week, and 12.4 percent receive more than $50 per week. Regarding the impact of amount of spending money on social inuence factors (RQ2), children receiving $20 or less per week score lower on the irrational social inuence factor (PEER) than children with more spending money (F 9:73, p 0:000). There is no signicant difference between any groups on amount of television-based inuence (TV). Children receiving the least money per week ($0-9) score signicantly higher on parental inuence (PARENTS) than children in all other spending money categories (F 3:7; p 0:003). Children in the two lowest categories score signicantly lower on the shopping-based inuence factor (SHOP), children who receive more than $50 per week score next highest, while children who receive $31-50 per week score signicantly the highest (F 7:25; p 0:000). Finally, as more spending money is available, brand-based inuence (BRAND) becomes more important, with a signicant difference between the lowest group ($0-9 per week) and children who receive more than $40 per week (F 9:14; p 0:000). These results clearly show that overall, the more spending money available to children, the more susceptible they are to irrational and market-based factors. On the other hand, the less money available, the more susceptible they are to rational parental inuence. This could be due to a greater dependence on parents to pay for things. It is likely that the amount of spending money available to children is loosely related to socio-economic status, and children from wealthier households may tend to be exposed more to recreational shopping and well-known brand names. It makes sense that children who have more disposable income can afford more things and more expensive brands, and may therefore spend more time in a commercial environment. 39

The next research question we address deals with the relationship between after-school arrangements and the relative impact of the social inuence factors (RQ3). In our sample 21.67 percent report staying home with one or more parents after school, 18.62 percent report staying at home alone, 9.6 percent participate in an after-school program, 28.85 percent hang out with friends, and 21.22 percent stay with another adult like a babysitter or grandparent(s). As expected the three groups of children who are not with adults after school score signicantly higher on peer-base irrational inuence (PEER) than the two groups who are with adults (F 10:91; p 0:000). Children who are at home alone score higher than all the other groups on the television-based inuence factor (TV) (F 3:64; p 0:006). On the parental inuence factor (PARENTS), children who either stay at home alone or hang out with friends score signicantly lower than those who stay at home with parents or are part of an after-school program (F 10:81; p 0:000). Children who stay home with parents score signicantly lower on both shopping-based (SHOP) and name brand-based (BRAND) inuence factors than those who hang out with their friends (F 3:90; p 0:004; F 6:62; p 0:000, respectively). These results are intuitive, and quantitatively show that children who spend less time with parents experience less rational social inuence and more commercial and irrational inuence in the consumer socialization process. One apparent exception is that children in after-school programs score higher on the parental inuence factor, which may be due to the program being of a more controlled, educational nature that resembles the in-school environment. Another interesting nding is that children who spend afternoons at home alone are inuenced by peers just as much as those who are with other children. It may be that these children are interacting with peers all afternoon either over the telephone or electronically through e-mail or instant messaging. The fourth research question looks at how the relative inuence of the various factors changes as children grow older (RQ4). A general linear model with the above independent variables and age as a covariate was run separately with each inuence factor as a dependent variable. The Pearson correlation coefcient is signicant for only peer and parental inuence. Older children experience more irrational peer (PEER) inuence (r 0:179, p 0:000). In the case of parental inuence (PARENTS), the relationship is negative (r 20:141; p 0:000), with older children experiencing less parental inuence. The commercial inuence of TV, SHOP, and BRAND do not vary with age. This corresponds with other research ndings, including early consumer socialization literature. Regarding the question of whether amount of television viewing is related to the relative impact of the social inuence factors (RQ5), we nd signicant positive correlations with peer-based irrational (PEER) inuence (r 0:157; p 0:000) and of course television-based (TV) inuence (r 0:271; p 0:000). As predicted, there is a negative relationship between amount of television viewed and parental-based (PARENTS) inuence ( r 20:085; p 0:029). Interestingly, no signicant correlations are found between amount of television viewing and the other two commercial inuences of SHOP and BRAND. A multivariate statistical test of the overall model with gender, amount of spending money, and after-school activities as independent variable, age and amount of television viewing

Major inuence factors in childrens consumer socialization Michael J. Dotson and Eva M. Hyatt

Journal of Consumer Marketing Volume 22 Number 1 2005 35 42

as covariates, and the ve inuence factors (PEER, TV, PARENTS, SHOP, and BRAND) as dependent variables, shows the model to be signicant. All independent variables are signicant (gender: F 32:6, p 0:000; after-school: F 3:175, p 0:000), with amount of spending money being only marginally signicant (F 1:45; p 0:069). Both covariates are signicant (age: F 6:48, p 0:000; television viewing: F 7:80, p 0:000). Only one interaction was found to be signicant: amount of spending money by after-school activities.

Managerial implications
The above ndings suggest a number of implications for marketers targeting children. Gender is currently a major variable used by marketers of childrens products to segment the market as far as the types of products marketed to girls and boys, but the media strategies used to reach them is the same for both genders. This research suggests that girls might be more effectively targeted using strategies that stimulate word-of-mouth and other social interaction, such as dELiA*s peer-to-peer guerilla marketing strategy which enlists girls to talk about the companys products with their friends (Wolff, 2003). Boys on the other hand might be more effectively targeted using non-personal sources, especially screen media. In other words, all the opportunities available to reach gender-based segments of the childrens market have not been exploited. As stated above, marketers are increasingly targeting children directly (rather than through the parents) with child-oriented messages, logos, characters, etc. that emphasize a cool, fun image (Wechsler, 1997a). Perhaps this strategy is not appropriate for all children. Our results suggest that children with less spending money, children who spend most of their after-school time with adults, and younger children are more interested in what their parents have to say about products and are less inuenced by irrational factors. Marketers primary focus on generating sales through pester power may be misplaced with many children. The cool and hip brand image appeal might not be effective with certain segments of the childrens market, especially those who are less independent in their marketplace behaviors. Marketers might instead develop strategies that attempt to bridge the gap between children and parents, such as creating products, programming and activities that involve both children and adults. For example, Harley Davidson dealerships organize their events, such as grand openings, benets, and rides, so as to create a family-oriented atmosphere with activities for all ages that instills positive brand-oriented experiences in children (Paul, 2002).

Discussion
Our research suggests that young people functioning in their role as social actors are susceptible to various forms of inuence. Degree of susceptibility has been found in this research to be a function of gender, amount of spending money available, after-school activities, age and media exposure. Children are obviously an important group for marketers to study because their attitudes regarding products and brands are still in their formative stages, and their current experiences affect their future brand preferences and marketplace behavior. It is also necessary to note that children are not just a big homogeneous segment, but make up a number of diverse subgroups. More investigation is needed to be able to target these subgroups effectively. One limitation of this research is that the child respondents were not queried about their internet usage and online behavior. This is important due to the fact that in the fractured media environment of today, even with hundreds of cable channels (many directed exclusively at children) and niche magazines, the rise of the internet is most relevant to todays children. It appears to be the medium of choice by Generation Y. A total of 90 percent of young people have been online (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2001). Children everywhere nd out about even the most obscure trends just as they emerge on web sites for popular television shows and channels, musicians and bands, new movies and video games, and corporate name brands (Neuborne, 1999). Children are attracted to commercial internet sites because they are designed to be child-friendly: they are colorful and engaging and offer interactive games and products the child recognizes (National Institute on Media and the Family, 2000). Visiting web sites does not even include all the e-mailing, instant messaging, chatrooms, homework and in-school use, music downloading and interactive gaming children engage in. Millions of children and teenagers have created their own personal web sites as well, which is becoming increasingly important, as is evident from this quotation from KidPulseTM online magazine: Now you cant survive socially without having your own cool site that reveals a total picture of your life (Jewer, 2002). Children are also shopping online. A total of 37 percent of children between the ages of ve and 12 years who go online and 67 percent of online teens have researched or bought products online. Children between the ages of ve and 18 years spent an estimated $1.3 billion online in 2002 (National Institute on Media and the Family, 2000). Future research needs to include the role of the internet in the consumer socialization process. Owing to the complex nature of the internet as both a non-personal and an interactive environment, which exhibits both educational and commercial information, its exact role in the consumer socialization process needs to be investigated. 40

References
Belch, G.E. and Belch, M.A. (2004), Advertising and Promotion: An Integrated Marketing Communications Perspective, 6th ed., McGraw-Hill Irwin, Boston, MA. Center for Media Education (2002), Children and television: frequently asked questions, available at: www.cme.org/children/kids_tv/. Center for a New American Dream (2002), Just the facts about advertising and marketing to children, available at: www.newdream.org/campaign/kids/facts.html. Chandler, T.M. and Heinzerling, B.M. (1999), Children and Adolescents in the Marketplace: Twenty-ve Years of Academic Research, The Pierian Press, Ann Arbor, MI. Dotson, M.J. and Hyatt, E.M. (1994), The impact of changes in the household on the consumer socialization process, Proceedings of the Southern Marketing Association, New Orleans, LA, November, pp. 156-60. Dotson, M.J. and Hyatt, E.M. (2000), A comparison of parents and childrens knowledge of brands and advertising slogans in the United States: implications for consumer socialization, Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 219-30.

Major inuence factors in childrens consumer socialization Michael J. Dotson and Eva M. Hyatt

Journal of Consumer Marketing Volume 22 Number 1 2005 35 42

Grassl, W. (1999), The reality of brands: towards an ontology of marketing, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 313-60. Jewer, J.A. (2002), Web branding: take it personally, KidPulseTM, available at www.kidsmarketing.com Kaiser Family Foundation (2001), Kids and media at the new millennium, available at: www.kff.org/content/2001/ Keller, K.L. (1998), Strategic Brand Management, PrenticeHall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Labrecque, J. and Ricard, L. (2001), Childrens inuences on family decision making: a restaurant study, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 54, November, pp. 173-6. McNeal, J.U. (1999), The Kids Market: Myths and Realities, Paramount Market Publishing, Ithaca, NY. McNeal, J.U. and Yeh, C.-H. (1993), Born to shop, American Demographics, June, pp. 34-9. Moschis, G.P. and Churchill, G.A. Jr (1978), Consumer socialization: a theoretical and emprical analysis, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 15, November, pp. 599-609. Moschis, G.P. and Moore, R.L. (1979), Decision making among the young: a socialization perspective, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 6, September, pp. 101-12. Moschis, G.P. and Moore, R.L. (1980), Purchasing behavior of adolescent consumers, Proceedings of the American Marketing Association, Vol. 45, pp. 89-92. National Institute on Media and the Family (2000), Internet advertising and children, available at: www.mediaand thefamily.org/research/fact/internetads.shtml National Institute on Media and the Family (2002), Children and advertising, available at: www.mediaand thefamily.org/research/fact/childadv.shtml Neuborne, E. (1999), Generation Y, Business Week, February 15, pp. 81-8. Nunnally, J. (1967), Psychometric Methods, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY. Paul, N.C. (2002), Branded for life?, Christian Science Monitor, April 1. Public Broadcasting Service (1999), The Merchants of Cool, Frontline, PBS Video, Public Broadcasting Service, Alexandria, VA. Roedder-John, D. (1999), Consumer socialization of children: a retrospective look at 25 years of research, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 26, December, pp. 183-213. Rushkoff, D. (2000), Young adolescents leisure patterns, Leisure and Society, Vol. 4 No. 2. Schulman, Y. and Clancy, K. (1992), Adults and children, a real gap, Adweek, Vol. 33, February 10, p. 48. Shimp, T.A. (2000), Advertising and Promotion: Supplemental Aspects of Integrated Marketing Communications, The Dryden Press, Fort Worth, TX. Ward, S. (1974), Consumer socialization, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 1, September, pp. 1-14. Wechsler, P. (1997a), Hey, kid, buy this!, Business Week, June 30, pp. 62-7. Wechsler, P. (1997b), This lesson is brought to you by . . ., Business Week, June 30, pp. 68-9. Wolff, C. (2003), Decrying how marketers get their hooks into teens, Boston Globe Online, February 18, available at: www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/047/ Zeijl, E., tePoel, Y., duBois-Reymond, M., Ravesloot, J. and Meulman, J.J. (2000), The role of parents and peers in the leisure activities of young adolescents, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 281-302.

Further reading
Annenberg Public Policy Center (2000), Media in the home 2000: the fth annual survey of parents and children, available at: www.appcpenn.org/reports/2000/.

Executive summary and implications for managers and executives

This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives a rapid appreciation of the content of this article. Those with a particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the research undertaken and its results to get the full benet of the material present.

Hey big spender marketing to young people The marketing of products to children and young people is a critical issue for marketers. Yet, as Dotson and Hyatt observe, much of our understanding of young peoples consumer behavior does not take account of the rapidity of change within the media and brand world. It is important therefore to update our understanding of the way in which these young people acclimatize to the exciting world of consumption. And, as marketers we must remind ourselves of the critical issues associated with the promotion of products to young people: . American children (4-12) spent $40 billion on their own account in 2002 and teenagers in the USA added a further $155 billion in spending to this gure. Young people are big consumers. The vast (and growing) array of media products targeted at young people attests to this fact and to the sense of children as real consumers. . Young people are more adaptive and open to new technologies than us grown ups (do you know how to download music to an MP3 player?) And this openness means that what we know today about marketing to young people becomes speedily out of date as those young people surf onto the next emerging idea or trend. . Marketing to young people raises a series of ethical issues. On one side we see the image of media-savvy child consumers who know exactly what the brand owners and marketers are up to while over the fence are those who argue that young people are innocent, tabula rasa on which wicked marketers are impressing their corrupt view of the world. Young people and the media a difcult relationship An experienced advertising man once said to me that just one reference to the brand by a childrens television host was worth a hundred advertisements. Yet there is no rhyme or reason to the nature of product endorsement and such mentions slip into childrens shows especially when they go out live. As important to the behavior of children are the social mores communicated by these hosts and the endorsement of product categories through competitions, prizes and constant reference. Young people also have a different way of consuming media compared to older generations (my son will watch television at the same time as playing a game on the computer). And the ickering, almost inconsequential nature of childrens television programming the most signicant element of the media plays to this means of consumption. Marketers 41

Major inuence factors in childrens consumer socialization Michael J. Dotson and Eva M. Hyatt

Journal of Consumer Marketing Volume 22 Number 1 2005 35 42

need to work with this approach rather than stick with the old ways especially as online media and communications becomes more signicant for young people. The other observation that emerges from Dotson and Hyatts study is the signicant difference in the consumer and media behavior of boys and girls. As parents we see this difference every day but in our working lives and through prevalent mores reject the idea that we should exploit gender differences. As ever we face the question as to whether marketers and advertisers are setting the trend or the tone or responding to whats happening. Here we see that boys and girls behave very differently as consumers (something reected in the article by Washida in this edition of JCM where he discusses Japanese high technology marketing) and we should adjust how we market products accordingly. How do we chase the trend? It is clear that most marketers are trying to keep up with the trend. Indeed, where a product becomes cool it is more often a matter of happening rather than deliberate intent. We take full advantage when it happens, but are not really sure what we did if indeed we did anything. Where young people are an important part of out markets (and from Dotson and Hyatts research this applies to most of us) we need to keep on top of the consumer behavior, media consumption and attitudes of children and young people. Not just through traditional market research approaches but also through observation, conversation and engagement we need to know what television channels or programs children are watching, but we also want to nd out about the content of this programming, the style and design of the show and the approach and attitude of presenters. Another valuable source of information about the consumption behavior of young people lies in the

observation of their online behavior. Dotson and Hyatt note that online activities are becoming more important to young people and the young people themselves create some of this online content. If we are serious about marketing to young people this activity provides an insight that is not available through orthodox research methods. Marketing to young people some ethical questions Although Dotson and Hyatt do not discuss the ethical issues associated with marketing to young people, these are alluded to in their introduction. And, as marketers are aware, there is growing pressure (from grown-ups rather than youngsters) for more regulatory control over marketing and promotion targeted at young people. Categories such as snacks and fast food are particularly vulnerable as public authorities face up to the culture of overeating in western developed countries. Young people are not ignorant of advertisings purpose and have at worst a streetwise understanding of marketing. And it is right that these young people are informed about the products they may wish to buy especially when they are using their own money. However, it is also right that advertisers behave responsibly in what, when and where they promote to young people. And it will always be difcult to strike the balance since what I deem acceptable may not be acceptable to you. As ever it is for us as marketers to take responsibility for ethics in advertising and marketing those who do not understand the discipline will not be able to make the nuanced decisions that allow for young people to enjoy their considerable spending power without being exploited by the unscrupulous. cis of the article Major inuence factors in childrens (A pre consumer socialization. Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)

42