Want to reach high school students? Consider placing an ad on their next quiz, test, or semester final. That’s right. One California teacher is selling advertising space to help cover the costs of printing.
The prices are a steal — ranging from $10 for a quiz to $30 for the final. Ad space is still available for next semester. So all you florist shops, tux rental stores, and limo services get the word out in time for prom shopping.
Ingenious way to counteract budget cuts, don’t you think?
Ingenious? Maybe.
Ethical? Definitely not.
I’ve been thinking about this post for awhile because I think you’re asking an important question. But, really, I think your answer is amiss. And full disclosure, I AM a marketing professional. So, I know how hard it is and how cool it can be when we break through traditional media and find effective new ways to engage people. I am all for it! But, let me be clear: ads do not belong on students’ schoolwork. Yes, people may sell them, and vendors may buy them, and students may read them them and consume accordingly. But, it’s irresponsible and unethical for us to place them there in the first place. No matter how good the intentions are to “counter budget cuts” or raise money. By putting ads on tests, we’re disrupting learning (even more than it already is) and we’re selling out our own kids.
I actually don’t have kids, but if my child or a niece/nephew came home with advertisements on his quizzes or tests, you can bet your backside I’d be in the superintendent’s office pretty darn fast–and perhaps more importantly for this discussion, my family and friends would NOT be patronizing those local businesses or consuming the products in the ads. After all, as the parent, even if my kids are tugging my heart strings, I’m still the one holding the purse strings.
Kids have enough to think about when taking a test, and they need to be focusing on their schoolwork during school. Just like we need to focus on our work in the office. Putting ads on any kid’s schoolwork is like Mike Burns embedding ads for Choice City Butchers, JAX or The Hunt Club on every email he sends round the office. It’s a disruption, not an engagement. (…The money he’d make in ad revenues would likely be offset by lost productivity and quite possibly staff turnover, too.) Call me old fashioned, or call me plenty worse. I stand by my response.
Ingenious? Maybe.
Ethical? Definitely not.
I’ve been thinking about this post for awhile because I think you’re asking an important question. But, really, I think your answer is amiss. And full disclosure, I AM a marketing professional. So, I know how hard it is and how cool it can be when we break through traditional media and find effective new ways to engage people. I am all for it! But, let me be clear: ads do not belong on students’ schoolwork. Yes, people may sell them, and vendors may buy them, and students may read them them and consume accordingly. But, it’s irresponsible and unethical for us to place them there in the first place. No matter how good the intentions are to “counter budget cuts” or raise money. By putting ads on tests, we’re disrupting learning (even more than it already is) and we’re selling out our own kids.
I actually don’t have kids, but if my child or a niece/nephew came home with advertisements on his quizzes or tests, you can bet your backside I’d be in the superintendent’s office pretty darn fast–and perhaps more importantly for this discussion, my family and friends would NOT be patronizing those local businesses or consuming the products in the ads. After all, as the parent, even if my kids are tugging my heart strings, I’m still the one holding the purse strings.
Kids have enough to think about when taking a test, and they need to be focusing on their schoolwork during school. Just like we need to focus on our work in the office. Putting ads on any kid’s schoolwork is like Mike Burns embedding ads for Choice City Butchers, JAX or The Hunt Club on every email he sends round the office. It’s a disruption, not an engagement. (…The money he’d make in ad revenues would likely be offset by lost productivity and quite possibly staff turnover, too.) Call me old fashioned, or call me plenty worse. I stand by my response.