My two-year-old had been shopping with Daddy. He pulled me eagerly by the hand to show me his treasures, writes Breda O'Brien.
There was shampoo with a "free" Finding Nemo glove puppet on the kitchen table and Lion King yoghurts in the bottom of the refrigerator. Given that I was in the process of writing about television advertising targeted at children, it was a bit discombobulating to find Exhibit A in my own kitchen.
We tend to think of children's advertising in terms of toys and games. However, one of the reasons advertisers lick their lips at the prospect of marketing to them is the effect that even very small children have on how the household budget is spent. It also explains the predictable whingeing by the advertising industry recently when the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland (BCI) launched the final phase of a proposed code on advertising to children.
Mind you, the proposals fall far short of the total ban on advertising to children that many parents would favour, but it does have some sensible suggestions, such as banning celebrity endorsements of products. The advertising industry has been shouting "Nanny state!" ever since the launch of the code, which is somewhat ironic.
There might be legitimate objections to proposals aimed at adults, if they infantilise them and deprive them of responsibility. Given that children are minors, it seems entirely appropriate to make use of the services of a nanny to protect them.
Every time there is the slightest effort to curb advertisers, they roll out the big guns to prevent it happening. One only has to think of the massive sums spent on lobbying when Sweden last held the EU presidency, in order to prevent them extending their national ban on children's advertising throughout the EU.
The proposed Irish code contains some useful but far from radical ideas. For example, advertisements cannot minimise the cost of something by using words like "only" or "just". Given that young children often do not have even the haziest idea of the value of money, if they hear something advertised as "just €99.99", they assume that it is cheap. Similarly, anything which costs more than €30 must state the price.
Christmas advertisements cannot be broadcast until November 1st, which means that Halloween monkey nuts will not have had time to go stale before we are bombarded with Christmas ads, but it beats having them in July.
Confectionery ads must show a toothbrush symbol, and fast-food ads must have a message urging moderation. The advertising agencies are saying that Irish stations will lose revenue to the British stations being beamed into Ireland, and that this will curtail resources to be spent on children's programming. This may be a red herring.
Although the Swedish proposal of a complete EU ban never got off the ground, many countries, include Britain, are planning restrictions not unlike our new code. Since most of these fall far short of a complete ban, there is now a much better chance of securing agreement on a common legal standard right across the EU.
A level playing pitch would put paid to the argument that foreign broadcasters would benefit from unilateral action on our part.
It is very difficult to obtain accurate figures of the amount of revenue children's advertising generates for RTÉ, because RTÉ invokes "commercial sensitivity" to prevent the public knowing, but best guesses are between €6 and €8 million. RTÉ has about 45 per cent of the market share, despite the fact that it voluntarily chooses not to broadcast children's ads five mornings a week.
There is something distasteful about a public service broadcaster making so much money out of children, although they would claim that it is ploughed back into children's programmes. In reality, many of the programmes that are bought in are little more than feature-length commercials.
If you want a trenchant and often hilarious account of RTÉ ambivalent attitude towards children and advertising, I would advise you to get your hands on a copy of film-maker Bob Quinn's book, Maverick.
It details his years on the RTÉ Authority, where, in his own words, he was a right pain in the posterior, seizing every opportunity to call for a ban on advertising targeted at children. Some of the funniest passages deal with moments of honesty on the part of other authority members, prompted by standing side by side at urinals. Some of the saddest show the unwillingness of trade unionists and management to deal with the issue, despite the fact that many of them are parents themselves.
For a long time, Bob was a lone voice, the maverick of his book title. However, it now looks as if he was merely ahead of his time. Bob is involved with a new organisation, Stop Television Advertising to Children, (STAC) and they have garnered significant public support.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Bob's book got short shrift from our national broadcaster, and to date no RTÉ programme has interviewed STAC representatives. It's a pity, because they have lots of good ideas.
STAC says that a complete ban would be best, but that a ban on advertising to children between 2 p.m. and 7 p.m. would be a good compromise.
These hours are frantic for parents, with school runs, homework and meals to be prepared. Children are often parked in front of the television, passively absorbing commercial messages which tell them that they are deficient until they own what the marketers want them to buy. Much of the concern about advertisements centres on the effects of junk food on children's weight.
It is a pity that we are not as worried about the kidnapping of our children's imaginations and spirits, and their early indoctrination into a consumer culture.
If you want to have an impact, this is your last chance. Submissions must be sent to the BCI by May 17th, either through its website or by post.
It is not too late, still, to call for a complete ban, or to support STAC's call for a moratorium between 2 p.m. and 7 p.m. Or you might talk to European election candidates about implementing common standards right across Europe. Whatever you do, don't succumb to the inertia that works to the advantage of the marketers, and to the detriment of our children.