Invasive Marketing and Children Marketing Essay

Invasive Marketing And Children Marketing EssayFor assignment help please contact

at [email protected] or [email protected]

Todays kids have more autonomy and decision-making power within the

family than in previous generations, so it follows that kids are vocal

about what they want their parents to buy. "Pester power" refers to

children's ability to nag their parents into purchasing items they may not

otherwise buy. Marketing to children is all about creating pester power,

because advertisers know what a powerful force it can be.

According to the 2001 marketing industry bookÂ Kidfluence, pestering or

nagging can be divided into two categories-"persistence" and

"importance." Persistence nagging (a plea, that is repeated over and over

again) is not as effective as the more sophisticated "importance nagging."

This latter method appeals to parents' desire to provide the best for their

children, and plays on any guilt they may have about not having enough

time for their kids.

The purpose of this research is to determine the degree or extent of

impact a child's opinion or persistence may have on parents' buying

behavior when it comes to inexpensive everyday items. We shall basically

be gathering data from parents using questionnaire's to determine

whether parents' feel their buying decisions are significantly affected by

their children's persistence.

Although the above is the research's primary objective, further study may

assist in determining how a child's persistence stands when weighed

against other significant driving forces such as cost or health concerns.

Problem Statement

To determine the degree or extent of impact a child's opinion or

persistence may have on parents buying behavior with respect to

variables such as parental age, education etc.

Proposed Research Hypotheses

H1: The Persistence from a child is a significant driving force behind the

Â Â Â Â purchase decision taken by parents.

H2: Parents age has an effect on acceptance of children influence.

H3: Parents education has an effect on acceptance of children

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â

Â influence.

H4: Parents income has an effect on acceptance of children influence.

Outline of the Study

Chapter one includes the overview of variables, problem statement that

tells the possible impact of child persistence on parents buying decision

and four proposed research hypotheses with a brief outline of the study.

Chapter two includes the literature review. In this chapter Economic

Factors, Invasive Marketing, Pester Power and Parents Influence are

explained. Chapter three is comprised of method of data collection which

is personal survey, sampling technique which is non-probability

convenient sampling ,sample size which is fifty, instrument of data

collection, research model developed which supports the problem

statement. Chapter four includes the results which show the

relationships between variables. Lastly Chapter five includes conclusion,

discussions, and implications.

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

The product preferences of children would appear to be motivated by a

range of influential factors. Social factors influence food choice and

eating habits, parents appear to be the most instrumental in teaching

their children consumer behavior through direct communication (McNeal

and Yeh, 1998; Caruana and Vassallo, 2003). Parents have the

opportunity to provide informational influence, as children perceive their

parents to be knowledgeable and observe their consumer behavior.

However, parents seem to be losing control of the buying situation to

their children, a fact supported by Schor (2006) who states that parents

are finding it increasingly difficult to deny children due to advertising

and marketing. This is due to the fact that they try to involve their

children in most of the family decisions including food purchases

(Gelperowic and Beharrell, 1998). Ahuja and Walker (1994) reports that

"mothers who shop with their kids wind up spending 30 percent more

then they originally intend and fathers spend 70 percent more". Today

children have more autonomy and decision-making power within the

family than in previous generations. The amount of influence exerted by

children varies by product category and stage of the decision making

process. For some products, they are active initiators, information

seekers, and buyers; whereas for other product categories, they influence

purchases made by the parents. This influence is termed as "Pester

power" which refers to children's' ability to nag their parents into

purchasing items they may not otherwise buy (Mintel, 2002). Marketing

to children is all about creating pester power as it is a powerful

marketing tool. Contemporary researchers express that children

constitute a major consumer market, with direct purchasing power for

snacks and sweets, and indirect purchase influence while shopping for

big-ticket items (Halan, 2002)

ECONOMIC FACTORS

Several factors will influence family purchase behavior of healthy foods.

Stein(1999) explain that children rely on their parents both to buy and to

pay for products they desire so the parents income can be a critical

factor when purchasing healthier food products. Healthy food may be

considered more expensive to purchase than junk food, a factor identified

as a barrier to healthy eating in research conducted by the Canadian

Diabetes Association (2002). There is evidence to suggest that people in

low income groups spend proportionally more of their income on food

than those in higher income groups Ralph and Ji (1996) suggest this may

have a negative impact on healthy eating practices. Walker (1994) report

that families on low incomes appreciate the importance of healthy eating,

however they are more concerned with avoiding waste and spending

within a budget. Changing to a healthy low cost diet would require more

than a minimal change to their current diet. To do so requires trial and

error and low income families have no margin for error

INVASIVE MARKETING AND CHILDREN

There is a deluge of information about products and services,

bewildering range of options and alternatives, endless promotions and

"special offers". Mitchell and Papavassiliou (2005) points out that

confused consumers are more vulnerable to deceptive marketing

practices and are not able to process information logically. Advertising is

instrumental in extending consumer confusion through information

overload brought about with too many complex and even conflicting

messages. These weaken the effect and decrease the recall rate of

individual messages thereby leading to more problems of decision

making. There is great concern about children as viewers of

advertisements primarily because young children are exposed to

Thousands of commercials each year in India (George, 2003) as well as in

the West (Kunkel, 2004).Marketing and advertising are accentuating

customer confusions to levels where passive delegation of decision

making has already been initiated. Quest for more disposable incomes

and better life style has left the customer with very little time to be

devoted to cognitive activity for decision making. Confused consumers

can often involve another person (i.e. spouse, family member, and friend)

in the purchasing decision or even delegate the task to them completely

(Mitchell and Papalassiliou 2005). Increasing customer confusion and

decreasing disposable time has thus lead to a state where in parents

have started involving children in the purchase decision making process

and have started passively delegating purchase decision responsibilities

to their children. Approximately, 80% of all advertising targeted to

children falls within four product categories: toys, cereals, candies, and

fast-food restaurants (Kunkel and Gantz, 1992). Halan (2002) opines that

"marketing to kids is no longer kid stuff". This study reflected that

parents considered the knowledge of children in terms of brands, models

and latest trends was much higher than their own and hence sought their

opinion in purchase decision of products. Children are very susceptible to

advertising, for example, McDonalds' Happy Meals came with a free

"Smurf" character in July 2002, one of nine characters which children

were encouraged to collect (Parents' Jury 2002). Mintel (2002) argues

that children are targeted directly with messages of what food products

to buy, which will influence them to pester their parents when shopping.

Parents often find it difficult to deny their children food that features

their favorite cartoon characters or celebrities that they have seen on

television (Keane and Willetts 1994).

PESTER POWER VERSUS PARENTAL INFLUENCE

The impressionistic minds of children try to force their parents to buy the

promoted products (Moschis and Churchill 1978; Moore 1982). McNeal

and Yeh (1997) demonstrate that children have great influence on their

parents' spending. In western literature, children have been reported to

wield a lot of influence in purchase decisions for children products such

as snacks, toys, children's wear and cereals. Children have been

observed to influence decisions for family products also, such as

holiday/vacations movies and eating at particular restaurants or even

decision making for the family to eat out (Williams and Veeck, 1998)

McNeal and Yeh (1997) point out that children have substantial input

into their parents' decision making related to weekend activities inside

and outside home. Comparatively in India, there is not much research

done on the Indian sample investigating the role of children in family

decision. Singh (2006) studied the role played by family members while

purchasing a television across five occupational categories: teachers,

doctors, businesspeople, lawyers, and engineers. The extent of influence

a child may have on a parent's purchase decision depends on at least two

factors: the child's assertiveness and the parent's child-centeredness.

(Kaur and Singh 2006).This influence can be at different stages of the

decision making process of families ranging from the stage of creating

awareness to the stage of actual buying behavior. St.Elmo Lewis

proposed a selling model in the 19th century (Strong 1925) which was

related to the decision making process for product purchase. The stages,

Attention, Interest, Desire, and Action, form a linear hierarchy. Simply

put, in order to be motivated to actually make a purchase, Lewis believed

that the fourth stage, Action, would come as a natural result of

movement through the first three stages; i.e., desire leads to action.

Children passively generate awareness, interest and the desire towards

products. For family activities, such as choice of vacations and

restaurants and consumer durables, research has shown that the

influence exerted by children is more in the Relationship between

Parental Overindulgence and Buying Behavior in problem recognition

stage and search stages and decreases considerably in final decision

making. However a study done by, Holdert and Antonides (1997)

reported that children's Influence was higher in the later stages of the

decision making process- that is, at the time of alternative evaluation,

choice, and purchase, for four purchases (holidays, adult and child

clothing, and sandwich filling). The buying intentions may be mediated

by parents. Thus parental authority holds significance in the purchase

decisions. Parents of young children have an important role to play in

protecting their kids from invasive marketing, and in educating them

about advertising from an early age.

PARENTS ARE UNDER THE EFFECT OF THEIR CHILDREN

In the 1950s, researchers in sociology started considering the

importance of children as consumers. In the 1960s, they expanded their

study on children to include their understanding of marketing and retail

functions, their influencing role in parent's purchase decisions and the

effect of parents and peers on their consumption patterns (Schor, 2006).

Children are an important social group, whose commercial importance

continues to grow. Advertising creators and marketing sales persons

therefore try to find the right formula that will address this group and

will also not come into conflict with ethics and the law. Parents who

satisfy children's requests encourage children to be attentive to

advertising and to ask for things more frequently, while parents, who

discuss children's requests, encourage them to develop skills in selecting

and interpreting product information (Caruana, and Vassallo, 2003).

Children`s want to possess products they have seen on television. This is

called "pester power," which means that children pester their parents or

other adults to buy things for them (Mitchell and Papalassiliou, 2005). In

U.K. parents spend approximately £7 more when supermarket shopping

with children than without them. If children wage a campaign of requests

and demands in advance of birthdays and Christmas, pester power shows

its effect in long term. For example, Stein (1999) pointed out three

quarters of children had started asking for Christmas presents before

October. On the other side children's pestering can lead to family

conflicts when parents refuse to buy products because of they cannot

afford to buy them or because of they think that they are inappropriate

for their children such as snack foods. Thus this situation may cause to

anger, frustration, and disappointment (Moschis, 1978). Children try to

get from their parents what they want by force and they nag their

families to buy food they have seen advertised. In order to obtain their

wishes, they can effectively play on parents tender spots. In the UK one

in five families are described they have battles over food nearly every

mealtime. On the other hand pester power is not only fostered through

the media. The dynamics arise in the family and it is a part of the culture.

For instance children appear to pester more in Sweden where the

advertising aimed at children is banned compare to Spain where it is

relieved (George, 2003). Children's pestering their parents for a product

they have just seen advertised on TV is often taken as evidence of

immediate effects (Dubois, 2000). Goldstein denies any such connection,

arguing that playmates are the principal influence on children's wants

and desires. Children have not got strong buying power but they do have

"pester power." Generally, busy parents choice the easy way and they

give in to children`s constant pestering. Children are very demanding

consumers from the marketing aspect (Hansen, 2005). Because

advertisers consider that brand loyalty begins early in life and childhood

experiences continue throughout a lifetime. Advertisement may easily

address children, but to be able to truly aim the marketing message well

is highly difficult. Because of effectiveness of advertising to children,

most countries which including Sweden, have banned advertisements on

television and radio programs targeted children under 12. Belgium has

forbidden commercial`s during children`s programs and Australia has

forbidden advertisements during television programming targeted at

preschoolers. As children become more independent viewers with access

to their own televisions and videos, parents have less control over what

children watch and less opportunity to discuss advertisements that might

have been seen during family viewing.

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODS

Method of Data Collection

As our research study is descriptive and sources of information are

primary, therefore we have used personal type of survey to collect the

data. First of all data collection process was planned properly and then

instrument was developed accordingly. Lastly actual data was collected

and compiled.

Sampling Technique

As the number of elements is unknown, we have used Non-probability

sampling technique. To collect data in proper and convenient way,

Convenience sampling is used. Parents are easily accessible so it is most

beneficial of all other sampling techniques.

First of all the population was defined, and then sampling frame was

determined. After determination of sampling frame, sampling technique

was decided. Once the technique is decided, sample size was decided

too. At last, the sampling process was executed.

Sample Size

The proposed number of respondents is fifty (50).

Instrument of Data Collection

To study the effects of parent's characteristics on their acceptance of

child influence on purchasing decision, a questionnaire is developed

comprising of thirteen questions. First nine question ask the parents

whether they take their children to grocery shopping with them, do they

listen to their demands, are they concerned with item that are unhealthy,

are they concerned with the price of the products, do they regret their

decisions later on, whether they discuss shopping of expensive luxury

item with children, do they ask them where to go for dinner, whether the

products used by parents are bought by the choice of their children and

do they fear making a decision that will upset their children. Tenth,

Eleventh and Twelfth questions are of age, income and education

respectively.

In short the questionnaire was designed to collect data about parental

buying behavior.

Validity and Reliability test

The instrument used here is valid and reliable. Because it is specifically

designed to collect data required to study the effects of parent's

characteristics on their acceptance of child influence on purchasing

decision.

Therefore data collected through this instrument is also valid and reliable

and leads us to more useful and specific results.

Research Model Developed

Figure 3.1

Children's Influence

Parental Buying Decision

Our research model shows that child's influence is the independent

variable whereas parental buying decision is the dependent variable.

Statistical Technique

After data entry we have used the frequency tables to analyze the results,

moreover percentages are used to explain and simplify the data.

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS & FINDINGS

4.1 RESULTS IN PERCENTAGE WITH RESPECT TO PERSISTENCE

I always take my children with me for our grocery shopping

Agree Proportion

Disagree Proportion

Un Decided Proportion

Respondents

80%

2%

18%

I always give in to my children's demands in the supermarket, when they want products of their choice rather than mine

Agree Proportion

Disagree Proportion


Respondents

60%

12%

27%

I often buy products that are not the right choice in terms of health options because of my children.

Agree Proportion

Disagree Proportion


Respondents

52%

32%

16%

I often buy products that are not the right choice in terms of price options because of my children.

Agree Proportion

Disagree Proportion


Respondents

60%

26%

14%

I often regret the purchase decisions I make when under pressure from my child/children.

Agree Proportion

Disagree Proportion


Respondents

54%

22%

24%

I always discuss purchasing options of expensive luxury items with my children.

Agree Proportion

Disagree Proportion


Respondents

38%

40%

22%

Things that I use for myself, I often buy based on my children's choice.

Agree Proportion

Disagree Proportion


Respondents

22%

64%

14%

I always dine at the place where my children love to go

Agree Proportion

Disagree Proportion


Respondents

86%

10%

4%

I fear making a decision that my children would end up making a disturbance about

Agree Proportion

Disagree Proportion


Respondents

32%

34%

34%

4.2 RESULTS IN PERCENTAGE WITH RESPECT TO AGE


AGE Scale

Agree Proportion

Disagree Proportion


19-29 Years

87.5Â %

0Â

12.5%Â

30-40 Years

80%Â

0Â

20%Â

41-51 Years

66 %

22.22%Â

11.11%Â

Â

Â

Â

Â


AGE Scale

Agree Proportion

Disagree Proportion


19-29 Years

43.75%Â

6.25%Â

37.5%Â

30-40 Years

Â 64%

Â 12%

24%Â

41-51 Years

Â 55.55%

Â 22.22%

22.22%Â

Â

Â

Â

Â


AGE Scale

Agree Proportion

Disagree Proportion


19-29 Years

37.5%Â

Â 12.5%

50%Â

30-40 Years

Â 60%

16%Â

24%Â

41-51 Years

Â 55.55%

44.44%Â

0Â

Â

Â

Â

Â


AGE Scale

Agree Proportion

Disagree Proportion


19-29 Years

Â 43%

43%Â

14%Â

30-40 Years

Â 72%

12%Â

16%Â

41-51 Years

55.55%Â

22.22%Â

22.22%Â

Â

Â

Â

Â


AGE Scale

Agree Proportion

Disagree Proportion


19-29 Years

37.5%Â

37.5%Â

25%Â

30-40 Years

Â 60%

12%Â

28%Â

41-51 Years

Â 66.66%

22.22%Â

11.12%Â

Â

Â

Â

Â


AGE Scale

Agree Proportion

Disagree Proportion


19-29 Years

12.5%Â

56.25%Â

31.25%Â

30-40 Years

48%Â

32%Â

20%Â

41-51 Years

Â 55.55%

33.33%Â

11.11%

Â

Â

Â

Â


AGE Scale

Agree Proportion

Disagree Proportion


19-29 Years

Â 12.5%

68.75%

18.75%

30-40 Years

Â 32%

56%

12%

41-51 Years

11.11%Â

77.77%

11.11%

Â

Â

Â

Â


AGE Scale

Agree Proportion

Disagree Proportion


19-29 Years

Â 75%

12.5%

12.5%

30-40 Years

Â 88%

12%

0

41-51 Years

Â 100%

0Â

0

Â

Â

Â

Â


AGE Scale

Agree Proportion

Disagree Proportion


19-29 Years

25%

37.5%

37.5%

30-40 Years

44%

28%

28%

41-51 Years

11%

44.44%

44.44%

Â

Â

Â

Â

4.3 RESULTS IN PERCENTAGE WITH RESPECT TO EDUCATION


Education Scale

Agree Proportion

Disagree Proportion


Intermediate or less

100%Â

0

0

Bachelors or equivalent

84.6%

Â 3.9%

11.5%

Masters or equivalent

72.72%

0

27.27%

Â

Â

Â

Â


Education Scale

Agree Proportion

Disagree Proportion



0Â

0

100%


61.53%

15.38%

19.23%


40.90%

45.45%

13.63%

Â

Â

Â

Â


Education Scale

Agree Proportion

Disagree Proportion



0Â

100%

0


65.38%

15.38%

19.23%


40.90%

45.45%

13.63%

Â

Â

Â

Â


Education Scale

Agree Proportion

Disagree Proportion



50%Â

50%

0


73.07%

11.5%

15.38%


Â 45.45%

40.90%

13.63%

Â

Â

Â

Â


Education Scale

Agree Proportion

Disagree Proportion


Intermediateor less

50%Â

0

50%


69.23%

11.53%

19.23%


36.36%

36.36%

27.27%

Â

Â

Â

Â


Education Scale

Agree Proportion

Dis Agree Proportion



0Â

100%

0


46.15%

38.46%

15.38%


31.81%

36.36%

31.81%

Â

Â

Â

Â


Education Scale

Agree Proportion




0Â

100%

0


26.92%

65.38%

7.69%


18.18%

59.09%

22.72%

Â

Â

Â

Â


Education Scale

Agree Proportion




100%Â

0

0


88.46%

11.53%

0


81.81%

9.09%

9.09%

Â

Â

Â

Â


Education Scale

Agree Proportion




0Â

50%

50%


42.30%

26.9%

30.76%


22.7%

40.90%

36.36%

Â

Â

Â

Â

4.4 RESULTS IN PERCENTAGE WITH RESPECT TO INCOME


Income Scale

Agree Proportion

Disagree Proportion


Rs 21000 - Rs 40000

Â 90.90%

0

9.09%

Rs 41000 - Rs 60000

78.94%

0

21.06%

Rs 61000 - Rs 80000

82.35%

0

17.64%

Rs 80000 and above

33.33%

33.33%

33.33%

Â

Â

Â

Â


Income Scale

Agree Proportion

Disagree Proportion


Rs 21000 - Rs 40000

Â 18.18%

9.09%

72.72%

Rs 41000 - Rs 60000

63.15%

5.2%

31.57%

Rs 61000 - Rs 80000

76.47%

23.5%

0

Rs 80000 and above

100%

0

0

Â

Â

Â

Â


Income Scale

Agree Proportion

Disagree Proportion


Rs 21000 - Rs 40000

45.45%Â

27.27%

27.27%

Rs 41000 - Rs 60000

42.10%

42.10%

15.78%

Rs 61000 - Rs 80000

64.70%

23.52%

11.76%

Rs 80000 and above

66.66%

33.33%

0

Â

Â

Â

Â


Income Scale

Agree Proportion

Disagree Proportion


Rs 21000 - Rs 40000

45.45%Â

36.36%

18.18%

Rs 41000 - Rs 60000

52.36%

26.31%

21.05%

Rs 61000 - Rs 80000

76.47%

17.64%

5.8%

Rs 80000 and above

66.66%

33.33%

0

Â

Â

Â

Â


Income Scale

Agree Proportion

Disagree Proportion


Rs 21000 - Rs 40000

9.09%Â

63.63%

27.27%

Rs 41000 - Rs 60000

42.10%

26.31%

31.57%

Rs 61000 - Rs 80000

41.17%

47.05%

11.76%

Rs 80000 and above

100%

0

0

Â

Â

Â

Â


Income Scale

Agree Proportion

Disagree Proportion


Rs 21000 - Rs 40000

9.09%Â

63.63%

27.27%

Rs 41000 - Rs 60000

42.10%

26.31%

31.57%

Rs 61000 - Rs 80000

41.17%

47.05%

11.76%

Rs 80000 and above

100%

0

0

Â

Â

Â

Â


Income Scale

Agree Proportion

Disagree Proportion


Rs 21000 - Rs 40000

0Â

100%

0

Rs 41000 - Rs 60000

21.05%

42.10%

36.84%

Rs 61000 - Rs 80000

35.29%

64.70%

0

Rs 80000 and above

33.33%

66.66%

0

Â

Â

Â

Â


Income Scale

Agree Proportion

Disagree Proportion


Rs 21000 - Rs 40000

81.81%Â

9.09%

9.09%

Rs 41000 - Rs 60000

84.21%

12.5%

5.2%

Rs 61000 - Rs 80000

88.23%

11.76%

0

Rs 80000 and above

100%

0

0

Â

Â

Â

Â


Income Scale

Agree Proportion

Disagree Proportion


Rs 21000 - Rs 40000

Â 9.09%

36.36%

54.54%

Rs 41000 - Rs 60000

42.10%

31.57%

26.31%

Rs 61000 - Rs 80000

35.29%

41.17%

23.52%

Rs 80000 and above

33.33%

0

66.66%

Â

Â

Â

Â

4.5 FINDINGS:

After thorough and critical analyses of the data taken from the

respondents following outcomes have been received;

As far as heaping praise on children demands all age groups, educational

and income level (above Rs. 41000 to Rs. 80000 above) form consensus

and falls in an agreement to children demands.

Majority of the respondents having education level master's and

equivalent disagree when asked whether they buy product that are not

right in terms of health. Meanwhile, the rest agreed.

Respondents aged 19 - 29 years forms equal proportion i.e. 43% both on

an agreement and disagreement when faced with question whether they

opt to go for the product that is not right in terms of the price.

When asked if the respondents feel pressured from his/her children while

shopping, all end up with mixed opinions, especially respondents having

age 19 years to 29 years with intermediate level of education and having

income level Rs. 21000 to Rs 40000 disagree, meanwhile income level

from Rs.61000 to Rs 80000 also disagree.

Respondents of all age, education and income level formed disagreement

except those having income level above Rs. 81000 end up in 100%

agreement when asked whether they involve their children in decision

making for the luxury items.

All respondents from all age, income and education level built consensus

on agreement when asked about the restaurant they go that is preferred

by their children

When asked if the respondents prefer the advice of his/her children for

the things they buy for their own use, all of them disagree strongly.

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION, DISCUSSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Conclusion

In conclusion, we can deduce that there is a strong relationship between

the children's influence and the buying behavior of the parents, but not

for every product or service as above findings depicted that most of the

time parents do not bother their child's persistence when they buy the

products and services that are luxury and for their personal use.

Analysis has also proved that child's persistence do influence in buying of

the product and services that are of routine use, grocery items, laundry

items (to some extent), clothes, toys off course, electronic goods

(especially related to kids), restaurants, entertainment place and venues,

and sports goods.

Study has also reveled that education, age and the income level also

influence the parent's behavior in response to their child's persistence for

any specific product and service. On most of the occasions child's

persistence for a specific product is only entertained because of the

enough buying power of his/her father/mother, it also shows that

respondents having enough buying power avoid pastor behavior of

his/her child by buying him what he wants no matter whether it's

expensive or injurious for health. In this case income level of the

respondent played the part. Similarly the age and education level also

change the behavior of the parents when they faced with their child's

persistence.

Discussions and Implications

Child persistence has a very strong relationship with the buying decision

made by parents especially when the products are of related to children

use. The influence varies product to product and service to service. This

serves the marketers to formulate strategy that best arouse the pester

behavior in the child and let the child to influence and force his/her

parents to buy product.

The research has revealed that children had more impact on the

selection of products that are children specific than the products that are

luxury and those used by adults. The results in the study vary with

respect to the age, education and income level.

Documents

Invasive Marketing and Children Marketing Essay