17 IELTS Writing

The bar chart illustrates how many advertisements children in one country were exposed to daily across four media platforms in 2010 and 2024. Overall, the most striking trend is the dramatic shift from traditional television advertising towards digital channels. While television was by far the dominant source of adverts in 2010, by 2024 children encountered far more advertising through online videos and social media. In 2010, children saw an average of 85 advertisements per day on television, more than on any other medium. Online videos accounted for 30 adverts, while mobile games (12) and social media (just 5) played minor roles. By 2024, the situation had reversed considerably. Television exposure had fallen to 40 adverts a day, less than half its previous figure. Meanwhile, social media surged to 110 adverts, becoming the leading channel, closely followed by online videos at 95. Mobile games also rose sharply to 70 adverts daily, almost six times the 2010 level.

Advertising directed at children has become a controversial issue, with some demanding an outright ban and others insisting it is benign. This essay will examine both perspectives before arguing that, while a total ban is impractical, strict regulation is essential. Those who support banning such advertising raise valid concerns about children's cognitive vulnerability. Young children typically cannot distinguish between entertainment and persuasion, and they lack the maturity to evaluate exaggerated claims. As a result, they are easily manipulated into pestering their parents for unhealthy snacks, expensive toys, or addictive digital products. Critics also point to rising childhood obesity, which some link directly to relentless marketing of sugary foods. On the other hand, defenders of children's advertising argue that it is largely harmless and even beneficial. They claim that adverts inform families about products genuinely suited to children, from educational tools to nutritious foods. Moreover, advertising revenue funds free children's content and entertainment, and parents ultimately control household purchases, acting as a natural filter against irresponsible spending. In my view, both arguments contain elements of truth, but the protection of children must take priority. A complete ban would be difficult to enforce in the digital age and could harm legitimate businesses. However, governments should impose firm restrictions, such as prohibiting junk-food advertising during children's programmes and requiring clear labelling of sponsored content online. In conclusion, although advertising to children is not inherently evil, the immaturity of its audience justifies careful regulation rather than complete freedom. Striking this balance best safeguards children while respecting commercial realities.