Pester Power

He recognises the child today as representing three different markets in one; a primary market spending its own savings or allowances; a secondary market of ‘influencers’ on mainly parental spending; and a future market of potential adult consumers. The child can act as a powerful influencer of adult purchases and there is a very dynamic child–parent purchase relationship. The second and third points are very significant.

[pic 1]

‘Pester power’ is defined as a child’s attempts to exert influence over parental purchases in a repetitive and sometimes confrontational way, but also with some degree of success which is important to state. The influence of child purchase decisions can be felt through this idea of pester power.

Nicholls and Cullen state that the consumption of products can either be confrontational or consensual. The level of consensus or conflict can be determined depending on the level of the parent’s perceived parental influence over the purchase decision or how much they feel the child has an influence over consumption. The more power the parent feels they have over the purchase, the less likely there will be conflict.

The child-parent purchase relationship can vary according to an array of things, to product group, the age of the child itself, depending on what they want to achieve in the visit, who initiated the visit or if a decision was made before the consumption activity.

Nicholls and Cullen talk about ethics and the conflict which can occur between the child consumer’s legal right to be involved in a purchase decision which affects them while a parent feels they know best what is right and wrong for the child and their ultimate right as a parent to make those decisions for them. The power of n=influence that a parent sees the have over a child usually changes when the child gets older and more influence is given to them, reducing conflict. This sees a clash in the rights of the child and parent consumer showing the conflict of pester power.