Proms Podcast

Star musicians and your favourite Times writers at the Albert Hall

Navigation - link to other main sections from here

From The Times

February 27, 2008

I want less choice, not more

We shouldn't be treating our children as little consumers. We can now see where this leads

Alice Miles

I grew up with precious little choice about anything. You ate what you were given, went to school where you were told, wore your sister's hand-me-downs (sometimes, to be honest, ate some pretty second-hand stuff too). And twice a year - birthday, Christmas - you got a present.

We weren't poor at all but that was entirely normal and I don't remember feeling remotely deprived. Today, as we can see all around us, children seem to have everything - designer clothes, computer games, fussy eating habits and the attention span of itchy gnats. A report yesterday from the Children's Society found that one in ten kids now has mental illness diagnosed and it concluded that materialistic consumer pressure may be partly to blame, with children from poor backgrounds the main victims.

Where is it coming from, this consumer pressure? First, from television, and the false dreams on offer there (we didn't watch much telly either).

Children from poor backgrounds, as well as having less money to buy the latest clothes or electronic games, are more likely to have parents without time to spend with them, and homes without access to outside space, so are far more likely to end up spending hours in front of the telly soaking up adverts alongside the easy gratification offered by cartoon, fantasy or drama.

You cannot just blame the parents for this; many will be working hard, with no choice, just to put food on the table (some will be cleaning your house or looking after your children); after all, how many can afford a house with a garden in a city or suburb these days? On the Today programme yesterday, the chief executive of the Advertising Association, Baroness Buscombe, argued that advertising to children could be a social good, among other things contributing to healthier lifestyles. I profoundly disagree, I think it is overwhelmingly damaging. It exists to sell things - toys, dreams, promises. That's all.

Of course parents can correct bouts of consumerism in their children by teaching them what is and is not affordable, but why subject them to the clever traps of marketing people in the first place? Pressure is bad enough as it is, from schoolfriends and celebrity excess, without allowing some of the cleverest adult minds in the sharpest advertising agencies in the world to manipulate them as well.

“We want to turn this on its head in a sense and talk about how we can empower parents and children,” Lady Buscombe added. “I mean, have they asked parents, do they want children's programmes, because of course commercial broadcasters rely on advertising to fund children's programmes.” Well, do we want commercial children's television? Couldn't we live without it? Her comment betrayed an interesting assumption: that children have a right as consumers to as wide a choice of programmes as possible.

But why is it in a child's interests to be treated like a consumer? It has yet to be proven that giving even adults a wide range of choices improves their lives. In many instances, from too many yoghurts in the supermarket all the way up to a supposed choice of doctor or school, it is just confusing and stressful. I think the fewer, carefully selected, choices we can give young children, the more we help them. Watch the exhausted face of a six-year-old confronted by all this year's Christmas presents, without the time to play with any of them for more than a few minutes, and see what I mean.

But choice is the buzzword of the moment, and we are all supposed to be in favour of it, even when, as in choice of school for instance, it translates into that panicking six-year-old, now a worried 11, being made to pay for the gap between a political rhetoric of choice and the reality of a stressed-out parent obsessing over league tables.

What are we teaching here? What is everyone, from the politician who parrots choice in public services to parents squeezing their children through tortuous entrance criteria to Lady Buscombe, teaching those kids? That they have a right to a wide choice, in everything. It isn't true. There is no automatic right.

And so these disappointed little consumers, already angry and isolated, fed on a diet of socially alienating television and straitjacketed testing regimes, grow up to hang morosely around shopping centres (watching the adults consume). There, we as a society routinely allow, even actively encourage, their literal social expulsion.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, yesterday joined the campaign against the Mosquito, the high-pitched machine, unbearable to teenage ears, which sends them fleeing from shops and arcades. It is hard to conceive of a more antisocial way of dealing with groups of mooching adolescents with nowhere to hang out; it is astonishing that we accepted the introduction of this offensive machine into a supposedly civilised society without a murmur. In other spheres, wouldn't we call it torture, or at least some form of bodily harm? Having buzzed them off with Mosquitos, we have the pleasure of watching angry, isolated teenagers morph into depressed adults who demand Prozac from the doctor - because I've got a choice, haven't I? It's my right: I don't have to take some exercise if I don't fancy it. I choose the little pill.

The hundreds of millions of pounds spent by the NHS on prescriptions for antidepressants that may after all have been largely ineffectual is one of the prices of the consumer society, where I get what I want.

(Incidentally, did it strike anybody else that the idea of “publication bias”, where drug companies withhold inconvenient results about the efficacy of a drug they want the NHS to prescribe, is more commonly known as “lying” or even “fraud”?)

We are spoilt, and we are spoiling our children. They need to be taught to look down as well as up; to choose to feel fortunate, and not envious - and to recognise that gratification isn't as easy as buying a new toy or switching on a dream. And, as my mother would have been delighted to hear, it will not cost a thing.

What a load of miserable rubbish. I like the choice thank you.

anneglen, Goslar, germany

I estimate that I grew up in roughly the same era as Alice, so of course I wholeheartedly agree with the article.
Having lots of choice does not automatically make things better.
A big choice on a menu is one thing, but you have space in your stomach for only one meal (maybe with pudding!).
A car park may have 5000 spaces - you only need one!
As a youngster I grew up with only 3 TV channels, and the quality and enjoyment of television was better then than now.

I read a recent quote which I fell is appropriate to repeat here:
"Poor is not the person who has little, but the one who wants much."

John Evans, Regensburg, Germany

I have written an exam about this article in english today! (i am from germany)
but I have to say that I have got the same opinion like the author!
there are too many commercial breaks in tv programmes!

Dear Alice Miles, I do really like your article!

bye bye

Luise, , Germany

I think it's probably true that choice - useful as it is for adults, and it is undoubtedly useful, please let's not start doubting that - is not much of a priority for children compared to the important values they should learn.

The problem we have with choice is similar to the one we have with obesity: we are not designed to handle the abundance with which modern society confronts us. Humans have always lived with scarcity. Our ancestors would probably have been glad to have to deal with this "problem", but it does probably require us to teach our children (and ourselves) to develop a certain resistance to advertising messages and the temptations of consumption. Once our basic needs are fulfilled, happiness seems to equate to reality minus expectations, so teaching children to expect less will help them navigate the consumer jungle later on. I'm amazed how many parents indulge their children's every whim; this sets them up to be difficult and unhappy later.

David Pritchard, Madrid, Spain

Hello there from across the pond. I agree completely with your general argument that today's youth have been given too many choices, and have been given the promise of entitlement with it. However, I disagree that this comes from children's TV. I think it comes from decades of TV aimed at adults as well as the adult population abdicating responsibility for nurturing a sense of social conscience in themselves and in their offspring.
Our whole universe seems to now revolve around "I", no matter where you live. "I" come first ,and my needs and desires- no matter if I am going into debt, if society is going into debt., if today's children are absent a moral compass beyond the mall.
I am at a loss to understand what might change this mindset. How do you convince society that turning off consumerism is the right thing to do?

D. Sackl, San Ramon, California, USA

I totally agree!! The political "window dressing" and doublespeak which is called "inclusion" makes my blood boil.

People are excluded by among other things being robbed of the democratic right to information which is not hopelessly out of touch with the actual world of experience.

Being saturated by the mantra of "choice" whilst that "choice is so conditional that the concept of choosing is annihilated.

David Smith, Sheffield,

It is the nature of a consumerist society to equate having a price with having a value. We must find the confidence to identify and then free ourselves from this equation whenever it rears its head. But that is to go again the grain of our national identity as either shopkeepers or consumers. How do we give ourselves and each other the confidence to do this? A: by just doing it and by having the courage to listen to others who just do it....
Let's discover and rediscover what has a value and that includes our own judgement....

Britt, London,

This article is very vague and makes few specific points. I honestly can't see a point here other than being critical for its own sake. The whole point of having a choice in things is that you also have the choice to NOT utilise your options. I can't believe that having too many brands of yoghurt in the supermarket is a point of stress for anyone bar yoghurt manufacturers.

At the end of the day, stress over choices for things is only an issue if you allow it to be. Perhaps, in preperation for the adult world, we could teach our kids to relax more. Perhaps; I'm gonna throw a wild suggestion in the works here, through playing with them? You remember, that thing you hark back to from your own childhood days?

Gary, Bristol,

Why are they advertising at children?

1. The children have money.
2. The advertisers think parents are stupid.

As Robert Heinlein's character, Lazarus Long said, "Keep your children long on hugs and short on pocket change."

Gregory Baker, Odenton, Maryland, USA

Zainab Sokona has it right. There may or may not be excessive choice in the modern world. I'm not particularly disturbed by all the different kinds of yoghurt -- I know my favorite (and the one I buy if that one is out of stock), so the others are pretty much irrelevant to me. But any solution that reduces choice will be a problem for a large number of people. SOMEBODY is buying all the other yoghurt that I don't even see. Should my favorite yoghurt be the one that gets discontinued, or should theirs? Either way, the permanent loss of choice hurts more than the initial trial-and-error process of developing personal taste.

Taste, discretion, and other values are the usual methods people use to guide their decisions in life. If children are not being taught these things, that's a serious problem. But all the materials for such teaching exist. Parents can start by teaching children to compare advertising claims with real experience. That provides a form of immunity.

M.C., Washington DC, USA

Perhaps it is so that we should let our children experience a great variety of things, but indeed don't let them choose by themselves too much to wether accept the experience or not (e.g. prefer an already known experiencein stead of experience something new and... strange perhaps). Later, when they are more developed, intelligence, consiousness etc. need time to develop, they can choose for themselves. Of course the lack of choice should not mean a too one-sided offer of experiences. E.g. let your children sport, but let them play pc games too, let them make their homework but let them experiment with their own creativity and intelligence too. Don't give your children a Christian education, but learn them what Christianity is, as well as Buddhism as atheism. Just some aspects that I name here, and indeed, as many have already stated: education is a very complex thing.

Gianni, Ghent, Belgium

Consumerism and choice are not the same thing, personally I certainly do not want my choices to be decided for me. What a bleak thought, and what an incredibly bizarre statment to make.

Ross Bishop, Hertfordshire,

Too many people - too many children.

m wilson, bidache, france

'Let me get this straight; we should have less choice because sometimes it can be confusing or stressful? Seriously? People in a free society have to make a potentially bewildering number of choices every day. Shielding our children from this will not prepare them for the reality they will live in.'

You are not shielding them...You are teaching them that not everything can be had all the time. Why do you think current society is banged upto the hilt with credit cards/loans etc..? Its because its too easy to say I want now and pay later. In teaching children less is not necessarilary worse you pointing your child a good discipline for all the so called later choices (your words) in life...

Stephen, Manchester, Cheshire

"after all, how many can afford a house with a garden in a city or suburb these days?"

I'd be prepared to hazard a guess : slightly more than did 30 (say) years ago, assuming that there are more houses with gardens in a city or suburb now than there were then (on the basis that more new houses have been built than old ones demolished).

But the same phenomenon is affecting adults as well as children. When do you ever hear "but we never knew any different" now? Everyone is acutely aware of what they have in comparison to others, thanks to the rise in communication, television and the internet. We live our lives by league tables, explicit or implicit. There's not much we can do about it and we might as well get used to it while young.

Tim, London,

A console that will only play video games costs two hundred pounds or so. A computer you can actually do something creative with, 500 to 1000 pounds. Maybe you want a school with a computer club so little Johnny knows how to use it? That will cost about 12 thousand pounds a year.

The further we get away from the vulgar consumerism of trainers and junk food and into things that parents tend to value, the more the cost shoots up from trivia to serious money. There isn't an easy answer. You can banish those designer labels, but only if you've enough money for that to no longer matter.

Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK

I agree 100%. Tons of choice confuses children which leads to them feeling inadequate and unempowered. We are wired to enjoy things slowly - I grew up with one TV station (though there were others, we never tuned them in) and so looked forward to my weekly Dr. Who, or whatever. Children shouldn't be allowed to operate remote controls either which just leads to flipping channels, no concentration on the programs, and ennui.

bronwen, new orleans, usa

Having choice is one of the greatest gifts of life today, how one procedes is entirely down to moral balance and education.

wayne, huntingdon, cambridgeshire

Sometimes, I walk into a shop - clothes shop, CD shop - and then walk out of it almost immediately muttering: "Too much, too much".

I feel overwhelmed by the amount of stuff there. I feel that I can't possibly trawl through all that stuff, comparing the products against each other, thinking of the quality and price ratio etc. I often fancy a new CD but when I see how much is on offer, I just can't decide.

I also think that the more there is on offer, the more anxious one becomes about whether or not one has made the right choice.

I also like the practice of not wanting more but liking what one already has.

Martina, Duesseldorf, Germany

'Nonsense. What choice -limiters such as Miles never explain is what our choices should be limited to or who should do the limiting. '

Nonsense ?? Do you have to be actually explained the limits ABC style ? You as a parent should be using your own commonsense in providing the boundaries to what the choices are and not saying yes all the time.

Its simply a case of they can't have everything they ask for. And yes I have seen that happen to many times. I have even seen parents being quoted as saying they can't say no as they feel they are depriving their child !! What message does that send to them ?

I have grown up two children and seen it all happen...Can I have this, can I have that, and its is difficult however there has to be clear limits as to what is an acceptable request and what isn't

Stephen, Manchester, Cheshire

Let me get this straight; we should have less choice because sometimes it can be confusing or stressful? Seriously? People in a free society have to make a potentially bewildering number of choices every day. Shielding our children from this will not prepare them for the reality they will live in. If you want to live in a different reality, fine. There are several dictatorships or deserted islands to choose from.

We are far better off teaching our children to make good choices than restricting their choices because they might not do so. It's my job as a parent to see that they are also taught about responsibility. That lesson will prevent any of the potential pitfalls of excessive choice that this article warns us about.

The mosquito does sound like a really bad idea; I'll give you that much, wholeheartedly.

Phil, New Mexico, USA

Alice, your write up took me down the memory lane. Those were the days of good ol' austerity ,with lot of caring and sharing. Even "hand-me-downs" were treated with much of awe and envy. My brother used to wear a Leather jacket, with a moccasin ruffed collar band, and for years I had me eyes on it. Not that, my parents couldn't buy me a brand(sic) new piece, but we weren't much brand conscious. When my brother left town for his higher studies, I took the advantage, even stevens to grab the opportunity and put on the jacket. For many days, I could idiolise myself like Travolta, with Saturday Night Fever, gripping our generation of seventies.But our kids and youngsters now lead a very restless life style,identifying and satiating their egos with Brand values, tags and all other hooplas. We aught to blame Ad agencies, who target kids and young ones to sell out their products.They promote by inducing kids to make their parents buy a car or fridge of its type. All in the days' work!!!!

sandy, New Delhi, India

When we are all medicated and stupid, its much easier to acquiesce to things clearly unacceptable - like mosquito deterrents.

Nevermind the wars on terror and drugs and reality, take these pills. Let us elites have our way while we force more of our pharmaceuticals down the mouths of children being born as commodities in a sick market.

Please, advertise to me in a way that speaks to me, so download my personal histories and use them against me.
Or, Create the history using TV and drugs, and look at where Big Brother will be then.

DS3M, Chicago, IL

I think it would be better for children to understand the choices, rather than to have them limited.

and I speak as someone who, with three children aged 3-7, has to put up with a constant barrage of "may we have one of those?". the answer, quite simply, is "no".

if your children resent that, then you need to talk to them.

as regards children's tv, I doubt we need any more children's programmes to be made ever. firstly, they seem to love repeats and, secondly, as they grow up they will move to different kinds of programmes.

jem, london, uk

The selling of â€œchoiceâ€, and it is a sales or marketing job, doesnâ€™t necessarily make anyone, adult or child, any happier. Americans are becoming interested in the basis of happiness, especially since books such as â€œThe Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Lessâ€ written by psychologist Barry Schwartz have received widespread coverage in the press. He and other academics have concluded that today's world offers us more choices but, ironically, less satisfaction.

As choices proliferate, the desire to make the best choice increases the incidence of anxiety, depression and stress. We quickly become overwhelmed by these decisions. consumption.

Research shows that close social relations, not wealth, provide happiness. Denmark seems to come tops of countries when quizzed on personal happiness; apparently the Danish belong to many clubs and social organizations.

Valerie, Chicago, USA

An advert for a product I don't remember but with a catchline I do remember and dislike is: "or" is an ugly word why chose "or" when you can have "and"?!

Interestingly a trial seems to have proven that when a market stall offered less products it actually sold more goods than the stalls that had huge lines to chose from.

The problem is we are a huge world population that needs to survive. In order to survive jobs producing goods and services are being created, whether they are needed or not as we all need to be occupied. More and more natural resources are being destroyed in the process of making goods that nobody really needs. Short of stopping to breed I don't see how we can address this, but this is a subject that few dare to mention let alone address. In the meantime we should all re-learn to be contempt with an awful lot less, defend our communities against developpers and supermarkets so that we can enjoy the places we live in, instead of fleeing on holidays abroad!

Esther Phillips, Leatherhead,

Right on alice. Now read Affluenza by Oliver James. Orwellian choice is really no choice just unhappiness.

Fi, Orkney, Scotland

jem, london, uk

Remember the lyrics of the Devo song from the 70s/80s: Freedom of choice is what you got; Freedom from choice is what you want.

Nicole, Barnet, Herts., U.K.

Parents cannot say NO to their children, because, they are unable to say NO to themselves. Advertising then doesn't enter the equation.

Jonathan, Cheshire,

So the Archbishop of Canterbury has joined the campaign against the 'mosquito'? That's Rowan Williams - man of the people and voice of commonsense?

Well that seals it - the 'Mosquito' must be a good thing after all.

Mark, Berkhamsted,

I grew up in North America where we had PBS (a public service channel, funded by yearly telethons and other public funds) - which ran the superb, and without parallel, 'Sesame Street' - all without (and still, to this day) commercials.

I agree that the adverts aimed at children are too much, but there is CBeebies. Unless I'm mistaken, I'm quite sure that plays cartoons from 6am-7pm (so a child can watch a little when they feel like it), with no commercial intervention. It is available as part of Freeview as well, so it is not something that you have to pay for (e.g. like Sky programmes).

Mia, London,

While it is good to have a choice surely it is also good to say "No" to children - rather more often than of late I would suggest. I grew up in the 70s - we were not spoilt, we did not want for essentials, but we certainly did not get everything we wanted. Maybe the current credit crunch will stop parents going out and buying everything for their children and spending time with them instead....?

Alix, MK, England

You may be described by some of looking through rose tinted glasses at your past, but perhaps you would be right to do that.
Children being targeting as consumers by marketing forces is unfotunate but inevitable. Consumerism, for all it's evils is the control method of a liberal government. We cannot legitimately use force to control the masses so we use consumerism. The man walking down the street becomese consumed with the thoughts of what mobile phone he can buy next, or which tiles would make his bathroom better than his neighbours. It is better that he thinks this than is aware that he is not as free as he thought, and tries to take something from you or rebel against society.
At least, we are free to rise above materialism and consumerism, if we are able to see past it's trappings. We are also free to protect our children from it by switching off the TV.

Richard Tomlin, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire

Adults are able to make their own decisions about what they do or do not want to consume. Children do not know what they want to consume; they are told by peer groups and television. The last person they want to take choice decisions from is their parents; did you? The main influences on children are advertising and peer group pressure. The chief influence for peer groups is advertising, Therefore advertising to children has to be controlled. It is not an attack on free speech or freedom of choice to limit advertising to children. It is a sensible way to allow children to get on with being children.

PSF, London, UK

On one hand you say, a lot of parents are so busy working, simply to put food on the table, and then you say we're all spoilt.

I wish you'd make your mind up, as it does not sound like we're all spoilt.

Arthur, Newcastle,

First rule of teaching: never give them a choice. Shall we do this, or shall we do that? - nothing gets done.

John Ledbury, Kings Lynn, England

I agree with Alice; too many children today (and their parents) have too much choice, which only leaves them confused and jaded. Children usually pick up their values from their parents, so if their parents are keeping up with the Joneses, then it follows that children will absorb those materialistic, consumerist values, leading to them wanting the 'right' trainers/ clothes/ toys.
After the novelty of the latest 'must have' (?) has worn off, they want something else and will never be satisfied. What a shame. No wonder kids seem to be more & more miserable and stressed in our society.

Lynda, Broxbourne,

This is what I call a "things were better in my day" opinion. Oh, and dispair at the state of youth is well documented in ancient Greece.

SH, London,

The Mosquito: " It is hard to conceive of a more antisocial way of dealing with groups of mooching adolescents with nowhere to hang out"
Gary Newlove and others like him, with appalling consequences, tried the more social and civilised way of dealing with groups of "mooching adolescents".

m collins, Leeds,

Surely this betrays a lack of imagination? It is easy to conceive of more antisocial methods of controlling young people than the mosquito (although I do disapprove of it - it seems I have the hearing of a teenager): flamethrowers; attack-dogs; parents (even worse, politicians) arriving and trying to be "cool"; bombing; pumping out trite classical music (rather than good stuff) because "they just don't like it" (neither do I, if this is going to be done, at least have someone with good taste pick the music rather than other round of "Ultimate relaxing smooth chill-out classics" mixed with Wagner). All of these would probably be much more harmful to everyone around.

John Scott, London,

What is better then? Cuba?, North Korea? where there is no choice and marketing or the capitalist world. I can well resist marketing and I am a very careful spender but it is my choice.

Peter Kaldor, Woking, U.K.

I think advertising (particularly TV) has been aimed (albeit surreptitiously) at the young for years - who hasn't witnessed children pestering parents in supermarkets to purchase a particular brand of whatever product, even consumables such as washing up liquid - that's the (misused) power of adverting!

Chris, Welwyn,

Yes, finally we have someone talking some sense! I have brought up my daughter (18 tomorrow) to appreciate the things she DOES have ( my time, a safe & pleasant home, books & limitless parental encouragement) rather than wishing for things she cannot have. We do most of our shopping in the local Salvation Army thrift shop.We delight in finding a bargain.
There are many things that I simply do not buy. My children are not deprived in any way as a result.

Sarah Fryer, vancouver, Canada

Nonsense. What choice -limiters such as Miles never explain is what our choices should be limited to or who should do the limiting. Will we have a Committee for the Protection of Children to whom all manufacturers and retailers will have to submit their proposals for approval?

Zainab Sokona, Sydney, Australia

Insightful and accurate. Most people are better off today than in the past and yet we still complain that we don't have enough. But when is enough enough? We are tangled in a web of consumerism that has us all trapped and unhappy. Time to take a step backwards and really look at our lives and what is really important.

Diana Louis, Paris, France

Marketing is the art of persuading people to buy what they do not need.
It is quite obscene that this black art is allowed to focus on young children. That is not something that one would expect to see in a well-balanced society.

Bill, Suzhou, China

OK then, I deny you the option of having less choice. Happy now?

_Felix, Nottingham,

Also in Alice Miles

Who'll be first to offer disabled people a job?

Also in Columnists

Times Recommends

OUR COLUMNISTS

Alice Miles

Alice Miles has been with The Times since 1999. She began as a Parliamentary Sketch writer before becoming a columnist, writing mainly on politics and national issues such as education and health. She won Columnist of the Year in 2007.