Stanford University researcher Tom Robinson recently published a study linking brands with the perception of quality in children. Apparently kids think McDonald's-branded products taste better than its unbranded (but identical) counterparts. This "revelation" is supposed to make us think that McDonald's is evil because their marketing is responsible for making kids fat.


In anticipation of the backlash, McDonald's promised to reduce the amount of money it spends on advertising to kids, and this MSNBC article says, "The study will likely stir more debate over the movement to restrict ads to kids." [emphasis mine].
First of all, that extraneous details influence our perception is nothing new. The authors of Made to Stick cited a study conducted in 1986 that demonstrated how irrelevant details can make ideas appear more credible. At a wine-tasting gala in Germany back in 1991, our host explained that the reason a yellow tablecloth was used was because it gave customers the sense that the chardonnay tasted better.
Second, and most important, when are we going to stop looking to government to fix our inability to say "no" to our kids? I really don't care how much money McDonald's spends on advertising to children, because three things are true:

1. One Big Mac or Happy Meal, when consumed properly, is not going to kill me or my kids;


2. Thus, marketing them is not an inherently immoral act; and


3. I can always say "No" to prevent excess.

Coincidentally, my son asked me just this weekend if he could have McDonald's (or Chick-fil-A, Wendy's, or Whataburger) for dinner, and I simply said we wouldn't. We had good, healthy food waiting for us at home, and there was simply no reason to buy and eat fast food, no matter how tasty it might have seemed to either of us at that time.
Note to parents: It wasn't difficult.
I understand that a diet consisting solely of Big Macs and Happy Meals is a sure path to obesity, and I understand that obesity is a serious problem. But I don't know of any advertising that advocates obesity. Ads, as they should, advocate the consumption or use of a product or service. Sometimes they work, and sometimes they don't, but in the end, there is no mystery about what we're getting when we buy fast food. It is our responsibility to make sound decisions concerning our own diets and lives, and the diets and lives of our children.
When we ask Congress or any other regulatory agency to interfere, we are admitting the people do not have the capacity to make sound decisions about their own lives (We rarely, if ever, apply the same logic to ourselves -- It's always the "other people" who have the problem and thus must be governed by outside sources). This creates an interesting paradox, since those same people who can't make sound decisions when confronted with a convincing ad are responsible for electing members of Congress, who appoint the regulatory authorities to which we must answer.
How can we claim the capacity to make decisions about our laws and representatives while at the same time claim that we don't have the capacity to make good decisions about how we react to advertising? If we cannot resist the temptation to eat fatty foods (or say "No" to our children) because the advertising makes it too appealing, we cannot logically claim that we have the discernment to preserve the very liberty that puts the reins of power within our reach.
I do believe companies have a responsibility to not only create products and services that are not innately harmful, but also to market them ethically. But at some point all of us, as consumers and as citizens, have to take responsibility to govern our own decisions. The implications of behaving otherwise go far beyond how we market Big Macs, Happy Meals, or anything else.
It means we can't be trusted with anything at all.