Commercialism

One of the key controversies surrounding Channel One is its inclusion of two minutes of advertising. The commercials are often the same as what children view at home on television, and the types of ads range from sneakers to jeans, soft drinks to movies (Aidman, 1995, 2). Following is a context for advertising in schools, a summary of the main argument, and an analysis of recent studies that measure the effects of Channel One advertising on students.

While Channel One did introduce television advertising in school, it would be unfair to call it a pioneer in classroom advertising. In fact, in 1957, research indicated that nine out of ten students saw an advertisement in school every day (Burk, 1957, 55). Critics decry the two minutes of ads; however, there is a glut of other advertisers vying for children’s attention. Scoreboards are erected free of charge, book covers crammed with logos are handed out in class, and magazines are distributed that have as much coverage of new movies as they do world news. Ads can also be found on school buses, in hallways, and on piped-in radio programming. The reason vendors are eager to capture the youth market is because they see kids as a "three in one market: as buyers themselves, as influences on their parents’ purchases, and as future adult consumers." (Aidman, 1995, 1). It should also be noted that "children spend 20% of their time in schools." (Aidman, 1995, 2). Students are a captive, and potentially lucrative, audience for strategic advertising.

There is strong opposition to Channel One ads strictly on moral grounds. The common theme throughout anti-Channel One material is that while children do see ads on a daily basis on television, targeting kids in school is unethical. According to Hugh Rank, schools are "the appropriate venue for neutrality and objectivity..." and that "Whittle has blurred the distinction between the marketplace and the schools," cultivating a "target audience." (Rank, 1994, 53). Lawrence Hoffman points out that since the ads are shown in the same setting as education, that Channel One could be seen as "analogous to a teacher stopping a lesson to pitch a product" (Hoffman, 1991, 25).

The Consumers Union of the United States argues that Channel One exploits young people. They state that "showing ads in school compromises the integrity of education," meaning teachers are being compromised by being forced to show the broadcast. In addition, "the ads contradict the lessons schools are trying to teach." For example, as teachers stress healthy eating, a junk food ad contradicts the lesson (CUUS, 1995, 22). Obligation, an anti-Channel One organization, has examples of Channel One sales literature which they use to argue that Channel One’s priority is to deliver viewers to advertisers, not news to young minds.

Consumerism is a difficult thing to measure in children. However, there are a few studies that have set out to show a correlation between Channel One viewing and impulsiveness. One study by Theresa Tozzo-Lyles and Kim Walsh-Childers analyzed impulsiveness in Channel One schools versus control schools (without Channel One). It found that (for the factors considered) "no difference was found between the Channel One and experimental school in likelihood to buy products advertised on the newscast." However, it did find that students in the control schools were more likely to buy the same products "because they knew it was good," meaning that those students judged a product on its quality rather than a catchy commercial (Tozzo-Lyles, Walsh-Childers, 1995, 17).

Bradley Greenberg and Jeffrey Brand chose a different approach to a similar study. For four weeks prior to their survey, they logged all advertisements. Then they asked students in both Channel One schools and control schools to identify certain products providing a slogan or logo (aided identification). Another test was distributed asking students to determine which brand they would choose out of specific product areas. In both cases, viewers were slightly more inclined to be familiar with products advertised on Channel One. Finally, the authors chose to study materialistic values using a brief survey. In general, Channel One students chose the "materialistic response" to test questions consistently. The authors concede, though, that TV advertising in general, as opposed to Channel One specifically, has been shown to reinforce attitudes of materialism (Greenberg, Brand, 1994, 57).

Because children see so many ads outside of class, it is difficult to determine the impact of Channel One’s commercials. The debate will go on as to whether including these ads has a negative effect on students.