Academic Writing Sample Answers Practice 19 Test 01

Commercial messages have always reached young audiences, but digital platforms make them unusually difficult to recognise and escape. I strongly agree that advertising directed at children should be governed more strictly than adult advertising because children are less capable of evaluating persuasive intent, while online techniques can exploit their personal data and emotional vulnerabilities.

The central justification for stronger protection is that children do not possess the judgement of mature consumers. An adult can usually distinguish entertainment from a sales pitch and consider whether a product offers genuine value. A child, by contrast, may regard a favourite creator’s recommendation or a branded character inside a game as trustworthy guidance. The commercial purpose is especially obscure when an advertisement takes the form of a playable challenge, an unboxing video or a reward for watching promotional content. It is therefore unreasonable to expect children to defend themselves against techniques deliberately designed to blur the boundary between play and marketing.

Digital advertising also creates risks beyond ordinary persuasion. Platforms can infer a young user’s interests, routines and insecurities from viewing or gaming behaviour, then deliver highly personalised messages repeatedly. In-game promotions may add time pressure, limited-edition rewards or social comparison, encouraging children to request purchases or spend money without appreciating its value. These methods can affect family finances and promote unhealthy habits, particularly when the products concerned are sugary food, gambling-like game mechanics or appearance-related goods.

Stricter rules should consequently require more than a small label stating that content is sponsored. Paid promotions aimed at children should be displayed separately from entertainment and explained in language they can readily understand. Behavioural targeting based on minors’ data should be prohibited, and games should not be allowed to make progress or social status depend on viewing advertisements or buying promoted items. Regulators should also hold platforms and influencers responsible alongside advertisers, since all three benefit from the campaign. Restrictions could be strongest for harmful products and younger age groups rather than imposing a complete ban on every advertisement.

Adults likewise deserve protection from deception and misuse of data, but equal rules would ignore a fundamental difference in capacity. Children cannot provide the same informed consent or exercise the same scepticism. For that reason, substantially stricter, carefully targeted regulation is both justified and necessary.

I strongly agree that advertisements aimed at children should face tighter controls than those intended for adults. Online advertising is often mixed into games and entertainment, making its commercial purpose hard to identify, and children generally lack the experience needed to assess such messages critically.

The first reason for separate rules is that younger viewers are more easily influenced. Most adults understand that a company pays an influencer to praise a product and that the positive claims may be selective. Children may instead see the influencer as a friend or role model and accept the recommendation without question. This problem becomes greater when advertising appears within an online game. A branded item, sponsored character or reward for watching a video can feel like part of the activity rather than an attempt to sell something. As a result, a simple rule against factually false claims does not offer children enough protection.

There are also concerns about repetition and personalisation. Social media and video services can use a person’s activity to decide which promotions to show. When the user is a child, this may allow companies to take advantage of a strong interest or insecurity before the child understands what is happening. Games can further create urgency by offering temporary items or encouraging players to keep up with friends. Such strategies may lead to constant requests for purchases and conflict within families. They are particularly troubling when unhealthy food or game features resembling gambling are promoted.

Appropriate regulation should therefore focus on both the content and delivery of advertising. Sponsored videos should carry clear, child-friendly notices, while advertisements inside games should be visually separated from gameplay. Companies should not be permitted to target minors on the basis of detailed behavioural data. In addition, purchases should require meaningful parental approval, and marketing for products that may harm children should be heavily restricted. Platforms and content creators must share responsibility, rather than leaving compliance entirely to the company whose product appears.

This does not mean that all advertising to children must be banned. Promotions for books, educational services or suitable entertainment can provide useful information if presented honestly. Nevertheless, because children are less able than adults to recognise manipulation and understand financial consequences, stricter rules are a proportionate response to the distinctive risks they face online.

I agree to a large extent that advertising directed at children should be controlled more strictly than advertising for adults. Children have less experience of judging commercial claims, and online advertisements are often presented as entertainment rather than as obvious promotions.

One important issue is that many children do not clearly understand the purpose of advertising. Adults usually know that an influencer may have been paid to recommend a product, so they can question whether the recommendation is honest. A younger viewer may trust the same person and believe that buying the product will make life more enjoyable. In online games, the distinction can be even less clear. Advertisements may offer extra lives, virtual clothes or other rewards, which makes watching or responding to them seem like a normal part of playing.

Another concern is the amount of information available to online platforms. A child’s viewing history, clicks and activity in games can reveal personal interests. Companies can then show the same type of advertisement repeatedly and make it more persuasive. This could encourage children to pressure their parents to buy unnecessary products. It may also be harmful when the advertising involves unhealthy food, expensive in-game items or products that create worries about physical appearance.

For these reasons, governments should introduce clear limits. Any paid promotion in a video should be identified in simple language that children can understand. Advertisements in games should also be kept separate from the main activity, and children should not lose progress if they refuse to watch them. Furthermore, companies should not use children’s personal data to create targeted advertising. Purchases of digital items should require approval from a parent, while advertising for unsuitable products should be prohibited completely.

However, I do not believe that every advertisement aimed at a child is harmful. An honest promotion for a book, museum or educational programme could help families discover something useful. Such advertising should still be allowed if it is clearly labelled and does not use pressure.

In conclusion, stricter rules are necessary because children are more vulnerable to hidden persuasion and targeted marketing than adults. Regulation should not ban all commercial information, but it should prevent companies and platforms from taking advantage of children’s limited understanding.