Hard sell soft targets parents talk about marketing to children report

In a MORI poll carried out by

the NFPI, 84 per cent of parents

thought that companies targeted

their children too much.

Parents told us that they felt their

children were bombarded with TV

adverts, particularly after school

and in the morning on Saturdays

and Sundays.

Parents have noticed that

marketing is targeting children at a

younger and younger age, and are

aware that their younger children

are more susceptible to advertising

than their older children.

Parents were aware and anxious

about the growth of other forms of

marketing. They knew that their

children were being targeted via

the internet and text messages,

but felt uninformed about those

new forms of communication.

Parents were particularly irritated

at the massive growth and ubiquity

of product tie-ins, often arising

from a TV programme, like the

Tweenies, or a fi lm, such as

Finding Nemo.

Parents thought that this high

level of marketing did affect their

children adversely. They spoke

of marketing being important

in shaping and forming their

children’s view of themselves and

the world around them, but also

their dismay at the way in which

marketing encouraged spending,

a throw away mentality and

dissatisfaction.

Parents admitted to feeling put

under pressure to make certain

purchases because of what their

children had seen on television

or in the shops. Although parents

may have sometimes resisted that

pressure, all spoke of the extra

aggravation and arguments, tears

and tantrums that it could cause.

They hated having to explain to

their children that they couldn’t

afford the item, particularly if all

their child’s friends already had it.

3National Family and Parenting Institute

Hard sell, soft targets?

Key findings and recommendations

Parents believed that it was

their responsibility to deal with

marketing to children. Most

saw their responsibility as

exercising restraint on their

children’s demands, and trying

to explain what marketing was

all about to their children. Few

of them believed that they could

realistically reduce their children’s

exposure to marketing.

Parents were unsure about

whether regulation would achieve

anything, but came up with some

specifi c proposals, like stopping

the advertising of junk food on

television.

On the basis of research, discussions

and our consultation with parents, the

NFPI recommend that:

Advertising to under-5s should be

banned on pre-school TV.

Advertising junk food should be

banned during children’s TV.

Research should be commissioned

on the cumulative effect of

blocks of adverts re-occurring

frequently on children’s television,

to ascertain whether codes of

practice need to be amended.

Options to bring together all the

broad, strategic issues to do with

marketing to children should be

investigated. There is a need for a

new or existing organisation to

act as a watchdog on behalf of

parents and children. Its remit

should cover all aspects of

marketing, and it should work with

the industry to develop guidelines

and good practice.

Vending machines selling

carbonated drinks, sweets, crisps

and other snacks should be banned

from schools, and each school

should ensure that it has enough

working water fountains.

Parents should be informed by

their children’s schools of any

company marketing initiatives, for

example, Jazzybooks.

A review of BBC commercial

activities which target children

should be undertaken, for

example, tie-ins with food

products in supermarkets.

Ofcom and TV companies should

be obliged to advertise how to

complain, and take all measures

to ensure that parents know

the process.

Why worry? As some parents in the

discussions said, there has always

been advertising, and there always

will be. There was no golden age when

children were not exposed to marketing

forces. Is there a danger that as in so

many other areas of their lives, adults

are restricting their choices and

independent decision-making through

being overprotective? In the desirable

aim to keep them from harm, are

adults actually making it harder for

children to develop the skills they

need in later life?

After all, children are not passive

objects; they deal with hundreds of

messages of different kinds from

parents, friends, school, neighbours

as well as television, the internet and

other forms of communication. They

will need to understand our complex

and sophisticated society. They will

need to develop analytical skills and a

certain toughness.

Even so, there are many reasons to

be worried. Marketers are after our

children. Advertising is big business.

Marketing happens on a global scale.

The food industry worldwide

spends $40 billion on food

advertising alone, more than the

Gross Domestic Product of 70% of

the world’s nations.3

In 2001 advertisers spent £161

million on selling chocolate and

sweets in the UK, much of it

directed at children.

£34 million was spent on ads for

crisps and snacks.

Just £10.2 million was spent

promoting frozen and fresh

vegetables and just £5 million

on fruit.4

The current value of the UK toy

market is £1.9 billion5, and that of

the worldwide toy market is (2000)

$54,742 million.

Marketing is not only directed at

children, but evidence suggests that

marketers and advertising agencies

are targeting children both in their

own right and to reach adults. The

pre-school market alone is worth £4.3

billion a year,6 but the consumer goods

market many millions more than that.

If it is true that children are increasingly

infl uential in decisions to buy cars,

computers, household goods, even

holidays, then they can expect no let-

up from the attentions of advertisers.

Marketing and building

brand loyalty is

a business with

very high stakes,

where more measured

consideration of the

longer term effects is

absent. But parents are

precisely concerned with such issues.

They must take the long term view

because theirs is a long term project

– helping their child reach independence

and maturity. Parents want to do the

right thing for their children, but they

don’t raise kids in a vacuum. Parents

are infl uenced by pressures they feel

are outside their control: pressure

from other parents, from the media,

from government – and pressure

from companies marketing their

products. Their own childhood seems an

inadequate frame of reference, but just

as outside pressures seem to be piling

up, so too are parents expected to do

it alone. Bringing up children is, more

than ever, an individual task; children

are becoming isolated from their

communities and parents often blamed

for everything from obesity to crime.

Lacking clear information, and caught

between the pressures from marketers

and business and the demands of their

children, parents can fi nd themselves in

a hard place.

“”

Over the last ten years,

marketing aimed at

children and tweens

has developed beyond

the old single

product to well-

organised networked

campaigns.2


Just another thing to worry about?



2 Martin Lindstrom, Brandchild, Kogan Page, 20033 Food Commission, Broadcasting Bad Health: Why food

marketing to children needs to be controlled, 20034 quoted in the Guardian, November 17, 2002

5 International Council of Toy Industry, British Association of Toy Retailers6 quoted in the Guardian November 6, 2002




The NFPI asked parents about their

views on marketing and advertising

to children, but they also told us a

lot about how they feel society has

changed, and how that relates to their

own children’s choices. Many parents

looked back at their own childhoods

and rightly or wrongly saw them as less

stressful, less pressured times. They

remembered far more play outside, with

less social life and activity focussed

within the home.

“I think that in a lot of ways television

advertising, that must have killed a

lot of kids. When I was a kid the

main problem with me was, where

was I? I was up trees, I was

conkering, I was swimming over the

brook, fishing, whatever. You can’t

get them out of the house now. The

worst thing my mother could say to

me was “Go to your room.” Whereas

now the kids come home from school

and ‘whoosh.’ We’ve got, I don’t

know how many televisions in our

house. They’ve all got one in their

bedrooms.”

“Life is different now”

“The thing that most annoys me

about advertising at children is the

way at this time of year it increases,

and I can guarantee that my seven

year-old is convinced that she

cannot do without this product she

has just seen advertised.”

Parents think that there is more

marketing directed at their children

than when they were children. They all

remember adverts from their childhood

– “don’t forget the fruit gums, mum!” –

but they all believe there is far more

marketing through many different

means. Their belief is confi rmed by this

remark from a marketing man:

“Imagine a child sitting in the

middle of a large circle of train

tracks. Tracks, like the tentacles of

an octopus, radiate to the child

from the outside circle of tracks.

The child can be reached from every

angle. This is how the corporate

marketing world is connected to the

child’s world.” 14

Parents spoke of the following different

forms of marketing:

Television advertisingAdvertising on the TV was the most

frequently mentioned. Parents not

only thought there were more adverts,

but that the bombardment happened

all year round, rather than at peak

selling times like Christmas. Weekend

morning programming was thought to

be particularly heavy and concentrated,

as was after-school programming. They

disliked the frequent repetition of

adverts. They were critical of some

adverts for toys and games: they felt

that adverts often fudged the line

between reality and fantasy and implied

that the toys were bigger than they were.

They felt that only expensive toys were

marketed, and they disliked what they

saw as a growth in the idea of sets or

series of toys which had to be collected,

which encouraged multiple purchase.

“The thing that most annoys me

– “don’t forget the fruit gums, mum!” –

“Imagine a child sitting in the

The proportion of children

judged overweight has increased

sevenfold in 30 years to 30%.

Seven out of ten school leavers

abandon physical activity.

More than 60% of children

regularly eat crisps after

school, 40% eat biscuits and

37% eat chocolate. Sales are

predicted to rise by 20% in the

next four years.11

Research from the Children’s

Society and the Children’s Play

Council12 asked more than 2,500

children what stopped them

playing outside. Their answers

included being told off by

adults, and even threatened for

activities such as riding a bike in

the street. Adults are becoming

increasingly intolerant. A MORI

survey found that 75% of the

adult population supported

a legally enforceable evening

curfew on teenagers.13

More money

Children have more disposable

income – pocket money is

increasing. 9-10 year olds get

£3.65 a week; 11-14 year olds

typically receive £6 or £7 a week

and 15-16 year olds get almost £13.

Annual spending power was

about £2.7 billion in 2002.

What do parents think about marketing to children?

Staying in

A 2002 survey by the ITC

(Independent Television

Commission) revealed that on

average each household has

three televisions.

More than 75% of 5-16 years

olds have their own TV; 50% have

their own video and 75% own a

mobile phone.7

A third of children under 3 have a

TV set in their room.8

On average children between four and

15 spend two hours and 23 minutes

a day watching TV (Broadcasting

Standards commission).

95% of advertising during

children’s TV programmes was for

fatty, salty or sugary foods.9

Most children according to the

BSC and the ITC keep the TV on

while doing homework.

The volume of children’s and young

people’s television provision has

grown, rising from just over four

hours a week in 1952 to over 620

hours in 2002. This growth is partly

because there are many more

channels. Many non-terrestrial

broadcasters broadcast content

for young people after the 9pm

watershed, but parents still value

the watershed.10

In a survey carried out by Powergen

during the 2003 summer holidays,

seven out of 10 children spend

more time playing on computers

and watching TV than any other

hobby. 25% of parents said their

children spent seven hours or more

a day in this way.

Out and about

In the early seventies, seven out of

ten seven year-olds made their own

way to school. Today less than one

in ten does. 39% of primary aged

children went to school by car (an

increase of 11% over 15 years).

Only about 2% of trips to school

by secondary age children were

by bike.

The British Heart Foundation says a

third of under-sevens fail to reach

the minimum recommended activity

levels – and by 15, two thirds of

girls are classifi ed inactive.

The changing lives of children and young people

11 Mintel, Children’s eating habits, 200312 Research released by the Children’s Society for Playday 2003 13 Ken Worpole, No particular place to go? Children, young people and public space, Groundwork, 200314 quoted in a speech by Gary Ruskin, Director of Commercial Alert, April 17, 2002

7 Childwise, Children and advertising, 20038 Early Learning Centre poll conducted by NOP, quoted in the Daily Telegraph, September 3, 20039 Sustain10 They have been watching 1952-2002…, Jamie Cowling and Kirstie Lee, IPPR, 2003

companies which were fi nding their way

into schools.

“As parents and primary school

teachers, we are aware of an

insidious way of targeting children.

These schemes in which children/

parents are encouraged to collect

vouchers or tokens which schools

can then exchange for equipment

are very worrying. Tesco vouchers

for computers and Walkers crisps

tokens spring to mind. Schools

which collect these tokens do so

very lightly without considering the

implications. By accepting the tokens

schools ‘officialise’ and condone the

purchases made.”

Starting early“Research shows that children

from as young as 18 months are

able to recognise corporate labels.

About a year later they are able to

associate items in their world with

specific brand names. For example,

when they think about juice, they

don’t think just juice, they think

company.”15

Parents were well aware that their

young children were being targeted

by companies. In a discussion about

McDonalds marketing strategy, one

parent said: “(They market) from

four, aged four. They get the Happy

Meals and the toys... my son’s first

words weren’t Mummy or Daddy,

they were ‘go gogga’ and that meant

McDonalds. He could see this big M

and he recognised it as McDonalds.”

While that may be a marketing man’s

dream, many parents were very

concerned at the effect marketing had

on such young children. “I think they

aim (TV advertising) at the little ones.

You try to explain to a four or five

year-old that it’s not actually

like that.”

Can children as young as four or fi ve

understand adverts? The research on

this issue is contested; however in

research commissioned by the ITC,16

Young suggested that by about fi ve

or six a child may have the rudiments

of advertising literacy on the most

simple level. However, it is not until

the child is older that he or she has an

understanding of the intentions behind

marketing. There is also a question of

whether an ‘adequate’ understanding is

good enough, even for older children.

“Every time there’s an advert for toys

he will say ‘I want that toy, can you

buy me that toy?’ He’s got so much

into the habit now that when we

come home he asks what we bought

him today.”

In 2000/2 the Tweenies franchise alone

earned the BBC £32 million. Tweenies

merchandise is everywhere, and the BBC

has linked up with both McDonalds and

Burger King, with Tweenies characters

used to promote burgers, sweets and

other foods high in salt, sugar and fat.

CinemaMany were irritated at cinema spin-offs.

“It’s connected with films now isn’t it?

No matter where you go, promoted

everywhere, in the supermarkets

there’s always something there

connected with a film. So then that

dictates what they want. It’s what

promotion is running in conjunction

with a new film. I think that seems to

be the biggest thing because

that will be then carried through

into McDonalds, through into

Woolworths, whatever.”

Product tie-insParents particularly mentioned

‘superbrands’, including the BBC show

Tweenies, ScoobyDoo and Bob the

Builder. Children notice products

displaying well-known characters and

want their parents to buy those, rather

than the unbranded variety.

“It’s the spaghetti that gets me

– Barbie spaghetti.”

“If I buy a packet of Penguins, normal

Penguins, they won’t touch them. If I

buy a packet of Penguins with Bart

Simpson on them, they’ll eat them

because they like Bart Simpson.”

“You walk into Woolworths and they

have got pencil cases, they’ve got

books, they’ve got everything.

They do it because they know what

children are like. I don’t think it

should be put on the shelves

so easily.”

Parents did not like collectable in-box

toys, save-up vouchers that encouraged

children to ask their parents to buy

more, particularly as they were often

associated with sweet cereals.

Internet“My kids want to go on the internet

and every time something flashes up

and an advert comes up all the time,

it keeps coming up.”

Parents were aware that internet and

mobile phone advertising were reaching

their children, but feel very uninformed

about it.

Marketing through new technology

is likely to increase rapidly. Some

potential issues for parents arising from

online marketing could include:

Invasion of children’s privacy

through collecting data from

children by the use of prizes and

games to fi nd out children’s email

addresses

Unsolicited email sent to children

Unclear distinction between

content and advertising in

‘branded environments’

Use of ‘product spokescharacters’

who interact directly with the child

Hyperlinks in children’s games and

play area which directly transport

the child to advertising sites.

A more pro-active approach must be

taken to regulate online marketing, for

example, advertisers should not be

allowed to acquire personal information

from children, and advertising should

be clearly differentiated.

School based activitiesParents were not happy about the

encroachment of marketing into schools.

They particularly mentioned vending

machines and posters for fast food




15 Martin Lindstrom16 The child’s understanding of the intent behind advertising, an update to 2002,. Brian M Young March 2002

“”

The cereal packs to collect this,

or the cards, it’s all about

having it. And then once

they’ve got it, I don’t know

about everybody else but

they don’t want it. He’s much

happier with a ball in

the garden.

Parents felt differently about marketing

depending on what was being advertised.

They strongly felt, however, that

marketing engages children and helps

shape their attitudes not just to specifi c

brands and products but to the world

around them. This was not seen by

parents as a positive effect.

Children have lost the ability to

please themselves, to be

creative, resourceful, self-reliant,

the net effect of protective

parents and the surge of child-

oriented products.

Children are, or are at risk of being,

spoilt, having things ‘too easy,’

unable to defer gratifi cation, or

cope with going without; they

engage in a process of attrition

where repetition of demand can

eventually lead to the parent

giving way.

Children, perhaps especially

between 6-14, are very receptive

to celebrity endorsement, to

brands and to product tie-ins.

They are at risk of developing a

‘throwaway’ attitude, encouraged

to adopt the latest brand/product

as it becomes available.

Older children’s

demands tend to be less

public than younger children’s

tantrums, but are usually directed

at much higher value goods, like

mobile phones, computer

software, televisions.

While they may be more ‘savvy’

about marketing techniques, they

are still children, and can be

misled and disappointed.

Parents do not want their children

to feel isolated by not having what

other children have – peer pressure

and marketing work as powerfully

on parents as on their kids.

Parents also expressed concerns

about clothes for children

(especially for girls) which are seen

as too skimpy and sexualised for

their age.

Does marketing influence family decisions?

“When you’re food shopping and

you’ve got kids with you, you end

up piling all sorts in your shopping

trolley. I mean, you do it for a quiet

life, but because they’ve seen it on

TV they think it’s the best.”

“I have lost count of the number

of tantrums I have had in Asda

because I won’t let the girls have

cereal just for the free gift.”

Parents admitted that they often

felt under pressure to buy for their

children. Although many of them said

that they resisted that pressure, they

said that it often led to confrontation

and arguments. Even if parents feel

that they do a reasonable job resisting

children’s pressure, it may be that

they underestimate the extent of

children’s infl uence, and the extent of

the effort by the marketing industry to

get children to infl uence their parents.

The industry has absolutely no doubt

that children and can increasingly do

exercise enormous power over their

family’s decision making.

“Children are often the key decision

makers concerning where a family

goes to eat. That means you should

do everything you can to appeal to

children’s love for McDonalds” (from an

internal McDonalds staff manual, cited

in the 1997 ‘McLibel’ trial summing up

by Justice Bell). The judge from the

McLibel trial came to the conclusion

that McDonalds did directly market

to children in order to get them to

put pressure on their parents to go to

McDonalds, and did so because children

are more susceptible to advertising.

“They walk along the shelves and see something they know, Bart Simpson or Nemo and say ‘I want those’, at a certain age, four or five. They say ‘I want that’. They don’t know what’s in it. Lots of times and you get home and it’s ‘Can I have, can I have...’ whatever character it is. You open it up and they don’t like it. They purely wanted it for the picture.”

Some recent research17 looked at

parents’ views on children’s decision

making power. It concludes that even

very young children have some decision-

making power.

Less than one in three parents

claimed they give their children no

say in decisions about food, leisure

activities and gifts they receive

About 40% of parents don’t allow

their children a say in what clothes

they wear

The level of decision making power

increases as the child gets older

but only 15% of teenagers are

always allowed to chose what they

eat or the gifts they receive

There is more infl uence over what

they wear than what they eat.

The study goes on to comment that it is

a sign of a healthier, more democratic

family life that children’s wishes are

listened to, and that teenagers in

particular appreciate the growing

freedom. But the same freedom

and more open family life can bring

unforeseen consequences. In marketing

terms, a child whose wishes are listened

to represents a marketing opportunity.

Whilst parents may be happy to allow

children a signifi cant say in matters that

directly affect them, like their clothes

and food, what about marketing adult

products to children?

The effects of marketing on children



Hard sell, soft targets?17 Future Foundations Vision, reported in Marketing Week, September 25, 2003

“”

The hype is to have

more and more and

more and more. The

hype is, the more

you have the better

you are.

Marketing adult products to children

“My eight year-old – he was only six

and a half — and I was doing the

shopping and he was saying ‘Mum,

you’ve got to get Bounty kitchen

towels, you’ve got to get them.’

I said ‘I don’t want to get those,

they’re twice as expensive.’ ‘But on

television they wipe up everything,

they don’t tear.’ He was telling me

things that were aimed at me. He

was picking up and thinking ‘These

kitchen towels are great, you’ve got

to get them.’

“Securing youth appeal not

only established brand loyalty

at an early age, but has a

dramatic influence on parents’

purchasing patterns.”

Martin Lindstrom

In his book, Lindstrom describes how

children increasingly infl uence decisions

about major purchases. He suggests

that urban tweens infl uence 60 per

cent of all car purchases made by their

parents, and 45 per cent of mobile

phone purchases. Because of their

importance to the market, companies

are increasingly targeting young people

to sell adult products, whilst still

trying to appeal to the adult market.

Companies are using, for example,

celebrity endorsements to give a

product a ‘cool’ image (42 per cent of all

boys think it’s really cool to see a sports

star in a commercial).18 Lindstrom

argues that tweens in particular ‘bond’

with adult brands, based on whether

the brand is trendy and accepted by

the peer group, but the main source

of information about adult brands is

still television. “Our data highlights the

commanding infl uence that television has

over tweens’ view of the world. No other

medium comes close to having the same

reach among tweens.”

What’s really being marketed?

“The advertising shows you a little

boy and his mum has given him this

Dairylea slice and he’s saying how

good his mum was, and then this

other poor boy only had sandwiches.

So his mum was really cruel,

you know, and that’s the wrong

impression. That your mum’s really

cool if she buys you this crappy

cheese, plastic cheese.”

“I sometimes think we give in to the

pressure because you don’t want

your child to be the odd one out.”

Here’s

what one

marketing

man thinks

it’s all about…

“Dreams are the hard

currency in the life

of a tween. Every brand

and every product has

to appeal to the

imagination of

tweens. It has to

give them something

to dream about.”19

And one academic wrote in a similar

vein. Dr Aric Sigman, a psychologist,

details how adverts directed at children

are designed to address and exploit

children’s basic needs.20 He identifi es

four vulnerabilities: the need for

nurture and protection; the need for

stimulation; the need for role models;

and the need for peer group acceptance.

Another advertising executive put it

this way…

“Advertising at its best is making people

feel that without their product, you’re a

loser. Kids are very sensitive to that. If

you tell them to buy something, they

are resistant, but if you tell them that

they’ll be a dork if they don’t you’ve got

their attention. You open up emotional

vulnerability, and it’s very easy to do with

kids because they’re the most emotionally

vulnerable.”21

What’s really being marketed is a

picture, a dream, a construction of

identity. And alongside that is being

created a brand-aware consumer,

looking to fi nd belonging and

acceptance through the marketplace.

There is no easy or straightforward

answer because as yet there is no

agreement on the problem. On the

one hand, there is an increasing body

of opinion worried about the effects

of the multi-million pound spend on

persuading and infl uencing children,

and on creating brand loyalty from an

ever earlier age. These organisations,

like the Food Commission or the US

Commercial Alert argue that the size

and economic strength of the industry

needs more control if it is to be

persuaded to look at the social good as

well as selling its products.

On the other hand, the industry argues

that children are more media-savvy

than ever before, that they need to

learn how to understand and analyse

marketing and advertising to help them

cope as they grow up. The industry

has funded a group called Media

Smart which provides worksheets and

material for schools to run classes on

understanding advertising from primary

school up. But should valuable lesson

time be spent teaching our children how

to become sophisticated consumers?


What should be done about marketing to children?



18 quoted from Martin Lindstrom, p.25419 Martin Lindstrom

20 quoted in Blackmail – the fi rst in a series of inquiries

into consumer concerns about the ethics of food

production and advertising, CWS ltd. 200021 quoted in “It’s time to protect children from the

advertisers”, Child Poverty Action Group 2002

“

”

You sound like a dragon to your

children. You’re constantly putting

down everything they’ve just been

told is wonderful. I’m constantly

negative about these

things – ‘it’s not as good

as that, it’s rubbish, it’s

cheap, it’s nasty.’ They

made it out to be some

wonderful item.



Media Smart quote research that “shows

that parents have the greatest infl uence

on young children’s development and

behaviour, and your media exposure

determines their media habits.” Media

Smart offers tips for parents in

controlling their children’s viewing, and

in so doing is reinforcing the idea that

it’s all down to parents.

The NFPI asked parents if they thought

that it was their responsibility – solely

and/or primarily – to control their

children’s viewing.

Is it down to parents to control children’s exposure to marketing?

“I feel like I have to keep saying no

because obviously with two children,

not working, and I just haven’t got

the money. And they want this and

I’m forever going ‘No, no, no, no’ and

what the kids must think of me – ‘Oh

I hate Mum, she never buys

me anything.’ It does get really

upsetting sometimes.”

“Parents do say no. They say no, you

can’t stay up late. No, you can’t eat

pudding before your main course.

No, you can’t have

a dog. Setting

boundaries is

what parents

do. It’s tough

sometimes... and

I need to ask if the

advertising industry

are comfortable spending

millions of pounds targeting

children direct and then

saying it’s down to mum

and dad to stand up

to them?”

In our discussion groups, parents

agreed that they do have a signifi cant

role in mediating between children

and marketing, and on the whole, felt

they were doing a good job. However,

they talked of feeling overwhelmed

at the scale and extent of marketing,

and therefore of the task. Parents

saw their role as dealing with the

consequences of children’s exposure

to marketing rather than prohibiting

children watching television, going on

the internet, using their mobile phone

and so on. They felt that the policing

role came at a price, and that they

felt themselves put in the position of

always having to say no, of being the

spoilsport or kill-joy.

Parents mentioned different strategies:

Reasoning about specifi c requests,

trying to clarify exactly why the

child wanted the item

Having agreed budgets for items

like clothes and presents

Asking for a matched contribution

from the child for expensive items

Doing deals – getting more of a

cheaper alternative, for example,

several T-shirts for the cost of one

branded T-shirt

Negotiated limits on time spent

watching television

Children not taken on shopping

trips, or only allowed one choice

from the supermarket

Avoidance tactics – delaying,

postponing a decision.

Parents said that the rules in the house

were often infl uenced by pressure from

the child, available cash, a desire for a

quiet life, and that the rules were often

applied inconsistently. It is likely from

the responses that parents operated a

fl uid system, but understandably they

were not keen to be self-critical.

Expecting parents to bear the

main burden of gatekeeping in an

environment where the full creative

and economic might of the marketing

world is put to persuading children

to buy seems unfair, unworkable and

detrimental to both the children’s and

parents’ best interests. Family life

has to deal with many pressures but

these are pressures which parents say

are outside their control, yet have a

profound impact within their family.

Should marketing to children be banned or regulated?

“I would say there should be a

restriction especially as regards food,

because a lot of the things that are

marketed at children are packed full

of additives, salt and sugar.”

“They’ll (marketing agencies) find

another way, they’ll do it through the

internet or mobile phones.”

Parents were uncertain about what

could be done to regulate or control

the industry, and felt that no matter

what was done, the industry would fi nd

a way round it. That feeling echoes a

consistent sense of helplessness in the

face of such a huge phenomenon. It

also refl ects the way in which parents

themselves accepted marketing and

adverts as just part of their lives,

sometimes useful, sometimes annoying.

Parents were reluctant to be drawn on

whether they felt there were any more

long-term effects of marketing to

children; just occasionally there was a

glimpse that marketing messages might

be put to better use.

“I’m not sure there should be no

advertising at all, but it is difficult,

but I feel that it is too hyped. I feel

that the country, the community, I

don’t know, has a duty to sometimes

portray a different message which is,

you know, what it’s all about rather

than having another car with a

computer on it, or whatever it is.”

Despite feeling that advertising “is

there and always will be,” parents

grappled with ideas on whether and how

the industry should be more controlled.

There was no clear consensus from the

discussions; parents were uncertain

whether control should be exercised

‘top-down’ or ‘bottom-up.’ They did

not believe that control would be easy

to defi ne and enforce – marketing

ingenuity would fi nd alternative,

possible less overt routes to the same

end. There was a sense that marketing

had infi ltrated so many areas of their

family’s life that a control in just one

area would do very little.


What do other countries do?

Many other European countries have taken action to protect

children from excessive marketing and advertising. France,

Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK have no legal

bans in place.

Austria – No advertising during children’s programmes.

Belgium – No advertising is allowed fi ve minutes

before or after programmes for children under 12

(in Flemish areas).

Denmark – No advertising breaks during programmes.

Greece – No advertising of toys between 7am and 10pm.

A total ban on advertising of war toys.

Sweden – No advertising to children under 12.

No adverts broadcast during or

immediately before or after

children’s programmes.




Some tentative support emerged for

some specifi cally and carefully directed

controls:

Controls by subject area:

controls or a ban on child-

oriented promotion of snack and

convenience foods.

Controls by time of day: there was

support for limiting the amount

of advertising in key periods,

particularly Saturday morning and

after school.

Controls by volume: parents

favoured a control of the number

of showings of any particular

advert or campaign.

Controls by creative content:

parents wanted more stringent

controls used when demonstrating

particular products, for example,

action toys to avoid disappointing

or misleading children.

How advertising is regulated in the UKIt was interesting that parents showed

no knowledge of existing rules and

codes governing advertising.

Up until very recently, the control of

advertising on television was the

responsibility of the Independent

Television Commission who drew up

codes of practice governing adverts,

with the power to impose fi nes for

breaking the rules. Individual adverts

for television have to be cleared in

advance by the Broadcast Advertising

Clearance Centre. There are specifi c

rules about advertising to children,

including:

Adverts for toys over £25 must

show the price.

There are restrictions on adverts

that ‘might result in harm to

children physically, mentally or

morally’ and on adverts that might

‘take advantage of the natural

credulity and sense of loyalty

of children’.

Adverts cannot ‘exhort children

to purchase or ask their parents

or others to make enquiries

or purchases’.

Adverts must not arouse unrealistic

expectations.

Adverts must not imply that

children will be inferior to

others, disloyal or will have let

someone down it they do not buy a

particular product.

Adverts must not contain material

which could lead to social, moral,

physical or psychological harm.

If people are unhappy about a particular

advert, they could write to complain to

the ITC.

From January 2004, there is a new

system of regulating most forms of

media by one single body. Ofcom (Offi ce

of Communications) has been set up by

Government to be a ‘super-regulator’,

taking over from the Independent

Television Commission, the Radio

Authority, Oftel (for telecommunications)

Radio Communications Agency and

Broadcasting Standards Commission.

The ASA (Advertising Standards

Authority), which deals with all print

regulation, remains.

Ofcom will be a ‘light-touch’ regulator,

that is, it will refl ect the Government’s

view that the industry needs less

regulation. As far as controls and

regulation on advertising is concerned,

the picture is still unclear, but it is

likely that all current codes will be

reviewed over the coming year. There

is a proposal to contract out regulation

of advertising on TV and radio to the

Advertising Standards Authority, which

runs a system of self-regulation.

Is the current system good enough?

Critics argue that self-regulation is

not tough enough – at present, the

ITC has the power to crack down or

ban offending adverts, but the new

system will rely on self-regulation.

Advertisers and marketers are

continually pushing at the

boundaries and have little interest

in a wider view of children’s

welfare or the social good.

The current system has

offered little

encouragement

to people to

complain or

have their voice

heard. Although

there is a complaints

system, it is not widely

used, perhaps because

of the perception that few

complaints are upheld. The

ITC and ASA have not

promoted themselves as

upholders of individual

citizens and advocates

for their interests to

the industry. It is diffi cult to

know how much infl uence users

and consumers will have on Ofcom.

The current system does not look at

the overall amount or cumulative

effect of adverts. It will only

examine an individual advert, not

its context or frequency or long

term effect. Ofcom will only look

at adverts in the broadcast media,

including the internet. There is an

urgent need for an organisation

that will look in a more over-

arching way at the combined

effects of marketing to children

– advertising, product placement,

celebrity endorsement, product tie-

ins and marketing to schools.

Whatever happens to the structure,

it is likely that parents will not

feel reassured that there will be a

robust and pro-active approach to

marketing to children.

Voices of concern

The EU Consumers Committee has

called for horizontal EU legislation

to cover all forms of marketing

practices covering all products

and services.

The World Health Organisation

has called for more stringent codes

of practice.




The International Obesity Task Force

has called for an advertising ban on

inappropriate food and drinks.

The chief Medical Offi cer has called

for the use of the ‘precautionary

principle’ in relation to food

advertising, which is defi ned as

“when an activity raises threats

of harm to human health or the

environment, precautionary

measure should be taken

even if some cause and effect

relationships are not fully

established scientifi cally.”

And the Government? Tessa Jowell, Minister with responsibility

for advertising, has asked Ofcom to

review its code on advertising food to

children, but has ruled out banning food

adverts on television. The Government

believes that less, not more, regulation

is desirable and has no policy on

marketing to children generally.

Kraft Foods announced in October 2003

that it would ‘strengthen the alignment

of our products and marketing with

societal needs’. In plain words, that

means that Kraft are responding to

consumer concerns (and hope it will

reduce the chance of the company

being sued for contributing to obesity).

Kraft have announced that they will

reduce salt, fat and sugar levels in

their products. Kraft make Dairylea

Lunchables, described by some parents

in our survey as “one of the most

processed, unhealthy things you

could possibly give your child.”

McDonalds have announced that some

Happy Meals for children in some

McDonalds outlets will offer fruit

rather than fries. McDonalds are also

expanding their range of foods to offer

salads. This Christmas (2003) for the

fi rst time Mcdonalds-branded toys are

being sold in toy shops. The toys are

aimed at very young children – getting

brand loyalty early.

Asda has announced that it will put

fresh fruit instead of confectionary at

the checkouts in all its stores. The

company said only 3 out of 20 checkouts

will offer fruit initially because

customers are “used to buying sweets.”

In November 2003, Coca Cola announced

an end to advertising their drinks to

children under 12. From January 2004,

Coca Cola will be the offi cial sponsor to

the UK Singles and Albums Chart, with

a weekly audience of 16 million, many

under 12. As Coca Cola’s branding will

be used when the charts are publicised,

Coca Cola branding is likely to appear on

BBC’s Top of the Pops.

GlaxoSmithKline have had to withdraw

a specially written Mr Men children’s

book promoting its anti-allergy

products because it had broken the

rule that advertising medicines is not

allowed in products directly targeted

at children.

Proctor & Gamble recently launched a

new toilet paper – Charmin – with a

picture of a cute cuddly bear on the

packaging. The company has now

produced a million copies of The

Adventures of Charmin the Bear, a 32 page

book aimed at 2-4 year olds, on sale in

bookshops. Executives admitted that

the publication of the book was designed

to bolster the image of its brand.

Cadbury Get Active campaign offered

to invest £9million in sports equipment

for schools via tokens on chocolate

wrappers at a time when almost one

in fi ve children is overweight. Children

would have had to eat 5,440 bars of

chocolate to collect enough tokens to

get a volleyball kit. The campaign has

now ended.

Walkers crisps have been running a

hugely successful campaign with

Gary Lineker endorsement. The result?

When vending machines arrived in

schools, 93 per cent of 15-16 year olds

rank the brand as their highest “top of

mind” snack.

Heinz has announced that it will

stop adverts directed solely at pre-

school children. But it will continue

to use pictures of TV characters on

its packaging.

One advertsing agency recently

apologised to a House of Commons

Select Committee for encouraging

pester power. In a private media

brief for Walkers Crisps, the agency’s

proposed script said “I am going to

pester mum for them (Wotsits) when

she next goes shopping.” Abbott

Mead Vickers said “the wording was

unfortunate and we won’t do it again.”

“Brands have become an integral

part of the way tweens defi ne

themselves. Tweens are the most

brand-conscious generation yet.

It is largely through their choice

of brands that tweens distinguish

themselves from one another.”

Brandchild, Martin Lindstrom, “one of the world’s primary

branding gurus.” Kogan Page, 2003

Spotlight on companies

There is a lot of debate about marketing

food to children, and the parents

in our survey had strong views. The

debate contains all the ingredients of

the larger picture: large corporations,

hands-off regulation, pressure from

health and consumer groups, celebrity

endorsement — and caught in the

middle — parents trying to decide to do

what’s best for their kids.

“We’re the parents. We should

be in control of what our kids eat.

They’re aimed at the kids aren’t they,

and they’re going to get the kids

whingeing – I want this, I want this.’

We should be in control of what our

kids eat.”

Concerns over marketing junk food to childrenA recent report by the Food Commission

shows that:

For every $1 dollar spent globally

by the World Health Organisation

on preventing obesity and related

illnesses, the global food industry

spent $500 promoting fatty foods.

Food advertising accounted for

about 50% of all advertising in

children’s programmes in UK, and

of that amount, around 75% was

for fast or convenience food.

The Food Standards Agency’s recent

research22 concluded that food

advertised to children is less healthy

than the recommended diet and food

promotion is having an effect,

particularly on children’s food preferences,

purchase behaviour and consumption.

The Consumers Association voiced

criticisms of the high levels of fat, sugar

and salt in foods specifi cally targeted

at children, using cartoon characters on

their packaging.

Arguments advanced by the industry against further controls

The industry argue that food is not

the key reason so many children

are overweight and unfi t, and that

far more needs to be done to get

children exercising.

They argue that a ban on food

advertising would reduce the

money available to make children’s

programmes on TV, and that the

quality would suffer as a result.

The industry already adhere to a

strict code of practice.

It’s up to parents to monitor

and control their children’s

eating habits.

In any case, children are not

gullible; they understand what’s

being advertised.

Advertising helps children make

sense of the world.

Public opinion can make a differencePublic opinion is swinging round in

this country towards greater control.

A recent poll for the Guardian by ICM

found that nearly 70 per cent of adults

favoured banning crisps, chocolate

and fi zzy drink vending machines from

schools; 57 per cent wanted food

advertising banned during children’s TV.

Debra Shipley MP has introduced a Bill

to ban advertising during pre-school

children’s TV that features food and

drink high in fat, salt and sugar.

Whilst the Government has not made a

commitment to introducing legislation

to tackle the marketing of unhealthy

food, the growing swell of opinion and

concern will become harder to ignore.

Marketing to ChildrenReport of the conference held on November 25, 2003


The current debate: marketing food to children

Opening Remarks 22Mary MacLeod, Chief Executive, NFPI

The Parent’s Perspective on Marketing to Children: The Issues 22Vicky Shotbolt, Head of Communications, NFPI

The Parent’s Perspective on Marketing to Children: The Research 23Gill Keep, Project Manager, NFPI

Review of Research on the Effects of Food Promotion to Children 23Professor Gerard Hastings, Director of

Centre for Social Marketing and Research

and Centre for Tobacco Control Research,

University of Strathclyde

Questions and Panel Answers 25

Study of Children and Fashion Consumption 25 Dr Christopher Pole, Senior Lecturer in

Sociology, University of Leicester


Food Standards Authority 26Rosemary Hignett, Head, Food Labelling

Division, Food Standards Authority

Advertising Standards Authority 27 Guy Parker, Director, Advertising Practice,

Advertising Standards Authority

The Independent Television Commission 28Ian Blair, Deputy Director, Programmes

and Advertising Group, Independent

Television Commission


Panel Discussion: The Way Forward, Choices and Challenges 30Mary MacLeod

Advertising Association 30Jeremy Preston, Director, Food Advertising Unit,

Advertising Association

The National Consumer Council 31Ed Mayo, Chief Executive, The National

Consumer Council

Media Smart 31Paul Jackson, Chairman, Media Smart

Good Business 32Steve Hilton, Director, Good Business

Questions and Answers 32

Contents


Marketing to Children Conference Report22 Review of research on the effects of food promotion to children, Gerard Hastings, University of Strathclyde, September 2003

Mary MacLeod Chief Executive, NFPI

The National Family and Parenting

Institute was set up four years ago to

make families matter in public policy, to

draw attention to difficulties families

face in raising children; and to work

to overcome them. We do this through

research, policy, public information and

campaigning. We hold events, seminars

and conferences to raise and debate

questions from the perspective of parents.

Parents have very little voice in policy

- even the school term dates are changed

without reference to them. There is an

overriding sense that others know best

- and this is not just government, but

industry, professional service providers,

and opinion formers in the media. Parents

are raising children within an atmosphere

of blame and pervading anxiety about

whether they are doing it well enough,

while they are unable to control all the

forces that impact on their and their

children’s lives. We want to highlight

that contradiction.

Many of the issues we examine at NFPI,

like marketing to children, are deeply

contested between organisations and

people with specific interests. We aim to

get people together across divides to hear

each other’s viewpoint and the evidence

in a search for solutions.

This seminar is especially timely, given

the way the marketing of ‘junk food’ has

risen up the public agenda. This seminar

has a wider focus. We are convinced that

segmenting the broad issue of marketing

to children into bite-size bits, while

it allows concentration, loses grasp of

scale, volume and range of marketing

that children are exposed to. Parents and

children do not lead their lives in these

separate arenas. Nor do we want to add to

the apocalyptic atmosphere about modern

family life that is often associated with

discussions about technology, marketing

and the family.

We do not expect to reach a consensus at

the end of this seminar. But we do hope to

achieve three things:

l To increase understanding among

participants of each other’s positions

l To raise awareness of the ordinary

parent’s experience

l To debate the pros and cons of

different approaches to lay the ground

for policy.

Vicky Shotbolt Head of Communications, NFPI1. IntroductionMarketing has a wide impact on children’s

daily life. Parents are subject to a wide

range of opinion from various bodies as

to what constitutes good parenting and

are often not praised for raising the next

generation, but blamed when things go

wrong. The media are very critical of

parents. Doing the best by children in a

society that places so many difficulties in

the way of parents is problematic. This is

the reason for the NFPI’s Family Friendly

campaign that began last October.

2. Family Friendly CampaignThe aim of the campaign was to find out

what parents’ worries and concerns are,

and how these could be improved. One

question was included about marketing,

which was ‘do you think that companies

target your children too much with goods?’

84 per cent of parents agreed. This was

the largest response in the entire report.

Some of the main issues raised included

the increase in advertising aimed at

children before the festive period; children

wanting products solely for a free gift; and

children being conned into buying goods.

3. Marketing TechniquesMarketers use various strategies to enter

the family space so that they can directly

influence children. There is a five-point

plan that is used in targeting children:

l Integrating channels. For adults there

are three channels: online, offline and

wireless. Children cannot differentiate

between channels, so all bases need

be covered.

l Integrate the message across

channels.

l Make sure it is legal.

l 24/7 brands.

l Think multidimensional. The channels

should work together for a viral effect.

Marketing people are employed to focus

specifically on children. As such, these

marketers are required to understand

children’s purchasing instincts and

in some cases job adverts specify an

understanding of pester power.

4. The ArgumentsAdverts are often intended to target

preschool-aged children and can include

scripts for children to use to pester their

parents. Parents are also manipulated

into buying products through gifts or

donations to a school. Marketers believe

that this type of activity switches

brand loyalties and does not change

consumption. However, this does not hold

when taken in the light of new products,

such as alcopops, that are created

specifically for children. Additionally,

when looking at the various products

available in a supermarket, one could be

inclined to believe that children require

food designed specifically for them.

Much of the marketing debate has focused

on food, for which the proposed solution

has been regular exercise. This has been

proved to be insufficient. Nobody believes

anymore that it is right for advertisers

to promote unhealthy foods so that

they become the diet, rather than an

occasional treat. The debate no longer

concerns just obesity, it is far more

complex and concerns the family, time,

budget and education.

It is also often argued that it is the

parent’s responsibility not to allow the

consumption of certain foods. However, in

reality parents set boundaries all the time

and the companies aim to stretch these

boundaries through vast advertising

budgets. These are not the actions of

responsible companies. However, some

companies do listen, such as Coca-Cola.

A further argument is that children should

be educated to be media savvy. However,

this is difficult for very young children

and one should question how much time

in a child’s education should have to be

devoted to media training.

Gill Keep Project Manager, NFPI1. Research BackgroundThe NFPI carried out research to develop

policy recommendations related to

the issues outlined above. This was

instigated by the large response to

the marketing question in the Family Friendly campaign. Further analysis

showed a consistency amongst the various

segments of society who responded in

this way. To explore the issues further,

the NFPI commissioned a market research

company to form discussion groups. They

met this month and the full report will be

published by Christmas. The discussions

were based around four questions.

2. Preliminary Findings to Questions

1. What do parents think the influence is

of marketing in general, and specifically

TV advertising?

Initial indications find that parents are

overwhelmed by the scale and scope of

marketing activity. Parents admitted that

although they are aware of cross channel

marketing, they were not aware of the

consequences. Parents felt marketing

had risen in volume and were most aware

of television advertising. Hostile views

were expressed on food marketing and

marketing of new technology.

2. How and to what extent do they

think marketing influences family

decision-making?

Parents believe advertising affects

a child’s view on the world, but were

not acrimonious, although they were

concerned about the values and

expectations this may encourage.

3. To what extent do parents think it is

their responsibility to limit children’s

exposure to marketing?

All parents felt that they had

responsibility to mediate between

children and marketing.

4. Do parents think that marketing to

children should be controlled and

regulated?

All parents felt that parental control was

not sufficient and that a regulator was

necessary, although there was no

agreement of who should be responsible.

Suggested areas of advertising regulation

included volume, time of day and the product.

3. Discussion CommentsIssues highlighted during the discussions

groups included:

l Children constantly pestering

parents for toys that have just been

advertised on television to the extent

that they expect toys during every

shopping trip.

l Children advising parents on products

that are aimed at adults.

l The hype regarding materialism and

that the more you have, the better

person you are.

4. Aim of the Research The aim of the research is to introduce

the parent’s view into the debate, the

responsibilities they feel and the daily

pressures they face.

Professor Gerard Hastings Director of Centre for Social Marketing and Research and Centre for Tobacco Control Research, University of Strathclyde

1. BackgroundThe Food Standards Agency (FSA)

commissioned research on the effects

of food promotion on children. This is a

literature review that looked at two issues.

The first was the extent and nature of

food promotion to children and, secondly,

the effects of this promotion. The main

reasoning behind the research was to

discover if the concerns voiced by parents

in this area had any scientific basis.

The review team included a broad range

of experienced academics from the

University of Strathclyde, the University

of Oxford, the University of York and

City University. Additionally, a scientific

advisory group was set up consisting of a

range of stakeholders.

2. Review ProcessThis was the first UK attempt to use

systematic review methods to examine

evidence on food promotion. This type

of research is very effective and is from

a scientific background that ensures

outcomes or decisions are as exact as

possible. It is comprehensive, rigorous,

transparent and replicable. The process

consisted of the following:

1. Accessing Data

This stage involved setting a wide enough

remit so that every possible study that

could be relevant is included. It involved

searching 11 databases of published

academic research, unpublished literature,


Opening Remarks

The Parent’s perspective on Marketing to Children: The Issues

The Parent’s Perspective on Marketing to Children: The Research

Review of Research on the Effects of Food Promotion to Children


Marketing to Children Conference Report


personal contacts and reference chasing

articles. All the searches were referenced,

and quality and consistency checks were

made throughout.

2. Initial Sifting of Data

Over 30,000 articles and reports

were found, requiring a great deal of

referencing to reduce duplication. This

was whittled down to 201 articles that

passed initial reference criteria.

3. Final Selection and Analysis

The 201 articles were assessed

against more stringent relevance and

methodological quality criteria. This

reduced the number to 101, 50 of which

provided reasonably reliable evidence on

the extent and nature of food promotion

on children, and 51 that provided

evidence on children’s response to food

promotion and its effects.

3. Findings1. What is the extent and nature of food

promotion?

Food dominates advertising to children,

with television being the principle

medium. Five product categories dominate

marketing: soft drinks, pre-sugared

cereals, confectionary, snacks and fast-

food restaurants. One of the most

significant findings was that the advertised

diet contrasts strongly with the

recommended diet.

2. What are the effects of food

promotion to children?

This question was broken down into the

following:

a. Does food promotion influence

children’s nutritional knowledge?

There is no evidence to suggest that

children watching advertisements have

a different perception on nutrition

than other children. What is apparent

is that advertising can enhance specific

knowledge of particular products.

b. Does food promotion influence

children’s preferences?

There is reasonably strong evidence

to support this. Children exposed to

food adverts are more likely to choose

advertised products than those who

are not.

c. Does food promotion influence

children’s food purchasing and

purchase-related behaviour?

There was strong and consistent evidence

finding that children exposed to food

promotion were influenced.

d. Does food promotion influence

children’s food consumption behaviour?

Some studies showed an influence,

although this was not as strong as the

evidence supporting an influence on

purchasing.

e. Does food promotion influence

children’s diet and health status?

This is a very difficult question to answer

as it requires a longitudinal study.

However, it was apparent that there

was a significant relationship between

television advertising and diet, obesity

and cholesterol. This does not implicate

advertising itself in this relationship, but

that of watching television. One study

found that greater exposure to food adverts

was related to higher calorie intake.

f. If food promotion has an effect, what is

the extent of this influence relative to

other factors?

This is the area with the weakest evidence

base as no studies could categorically

prove what the effect was relative to

other factors. The evidence does show,

however, that the effect of advertising is

independent of other influences.

g. Does food promotion affect total

category sales, brand-switching or both?

There is exactly the same evidence to

suggest that food promotion affects both

category and brand. Thus, there is no

reason to suggest that advertising affects

category and not brand choice.

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

The research base is not fully

encompassing, so there is not a perfect

understanding of the issue, which would

not be possible anyhow. Furthermore, this

involves social science where there is no

such thing as certainty. However, it is

clear that the advertised diet contrasts

strongly with the recommended diet.

There is sufficient evidence to show that

food promotion affects children’s food

purchasing behaviour and preferences.

At the same time, evidence suggests

that advertising may be used to promote

healthy food, not just unhealthy.

The review carried out is likely to

understate the effects as it concentrated

on television advertising only and ignores

indirect effects.

Overall, it is clear that there is an effect.

This should be accepted so that the

argument can progress. There is a clear

need for a policy debate to respond to

this evidence. Future research should

focus on informing this debate.

5. PolicyIt is already clear that in order to progress

marketing should be considered, as

opposed to advertising, and the lessons

from tobacco should be heeded. It should

be recognised that marketing is a dynamic

force and legislation is ponderous and ad

hoc. Thus, the response should reflect this

dynamism. It should also be borne in mind

that marketing can be used to encourage

better behaviour rather than worse.

Policy should incorporate the potential

to harness good practice. This is a

positive solution that moves beyond the

blame game. It recognises the vital role

of the food industry, enables the

concept of a shared vision and provides a

partnership environment.

In controlling bad practice, the guiding

principle should be that marketing

should not be used to encourage excess

consumption of high salt, sugar and fat

products. All food marketing should be

monitored and controlled and should

be consumer driven. Such a function

requires a statutory framework, longevity,

flexibility and long-term independent

funding. This body would need to work

within the existing structure and requires

a profile to reflect the seriousness of

the matter.

The benefits of such a body would

facilitate and encourage good practice,

allow the debate to move beyond blaming,

create a shared vision and provide a

strategic force. Furthermore, it would

enable the UK to take international

leadership on a very difficult problem.

Questions and Panel AnswersQ Would it be possible to carry out a

study between the UK and another country, such as Sweden where it is not possible to advertise during children’s television?

How old were the children in the study?

A An international study would be

possible. One problem would be that it

would require a study from before the

ban and it would have to be ongoing.

Additionally, there are many factors

that make Sweden different from the UK.

The issue is that there is enough data

to act now rather than carry out more

studies that may simply delay action.

The age group was between two and 15.

Q What will be the reaction point in the argument with industry?

A There should be no single event. It is

hoped that the stakeholders are able to

discuss an amicable solution together,

rather than through confrontation. The

statistics on obesity are most likely

to push this up the public agenda, as

occurred with smoking. For example, in

New York State, they have proved that

life expectancy has fallen as a result

of obesity. Once statistics are released,

pressure will focus on industry to make

it realise that it does not want to go

down the same litigious path

as tobacco.

Q It would be difficult to legislate against advertising unhealthy food. Could advertising be used to promote healthy food to create a competition for unhealthy food?

A If the advertised diet were the

recommended one and companies

began to promote healthy food, then

that would be a very favourable

outcome. One of the main problems is

materialism, which is far more difficult

to tackle.

Dr Christopher Pole Senior Lecturer in Sociology, University of Leicester1. BackgroundThis study is being carried out by the

University of Leicester and is funded by

the Economic and Social Research Council

(ESRC) and the Arts and Humanities

Research Board (AHRB). It forms part

of the research currently being carried

out into cultures of consumption. The

coordinator of the programme is Dr Frank

Trentmann, Birkbeck College. All of the

team are sociologists with different

specialities.

The focus of this research is on children as

active consumers of fashion, which is part

of two themes of the overall programme.

These are the penetration of consumption

into the domestic sphere and how people

use knowledge of products or services in

order to consume, with children expected

to use different knowledge than parents.

The reason for studying fashion is that it

is increasingly significant to children and

there is very little sociological research

on young children and fashion. This is

surprising since the clothing and accessories

market is worth £5 billion per year.

2. Key Research Questionsl What is the role of children as

independent agents in the process

of selection and purchasing of their

own clothing?

l What are children’s understandings

and interpretations of clothing

consumption in respect of their

own bodies? The body is integral to

clothing, so what does this mean

for children?

l How is the consumption of children’s

clothing mediated through

generational relations in the

household and through peer relations,

and how does this change over time?

For example, young girls wear clothes

deemed to be only suitable for older

ones. Central to this issue is the

way power is mediated through the

household.

l What understandings of the

consumption of children’s clothing

do children’s clothing producers

have, and what are the relationships

between these understandings and

children’s choices as consumers?

l What role does children’s clothing

consumption play in contributing

to experiences of social conditions,

such as exclusion and inclusion? The

main concern is with the differences

between wants and needs and when

pressures begin.

The research is ongoing, so there are no

findings to report at present.

3. Data Collection MethodsThis is a small scale, ethnographic

study. It involves eight families carefully

selected to be illustrative of the

population over one year. In the spirit of

the new social studies of childhood, the

intention is to encourage the children to

influence the research agenda.

Study of children and fashion consumption




on attitudes and concluded that parents

as well as children engaged in the

promotional activities of food, which

they also enjoyed. Parent’s main objective

was to buy food that was eaten, which

often meant fun food. The second piece

focused on research into the effects of

food promotion.

3. Policy OptionsFollowing this research, the FSA published

a paper in November highlighting policy

options in a consultative process that will

be used to formulate a proposal. There

is a range of discussions organised until

the end of the year and a public debate

in January. A decision will be taken

early 2004 at the FSA Board meeting on

this process. The FSA is keen to find an

effective and practical solution. This is

made more difficult as the effects of food

promotion are tough to judge. However,

it is clear that partnerships will be key.

The FSA’s concern with regard to television

advertising concerns the diet that

advertising promotes and not individual

adverts; the emphasis is on unhealthy

food. A clear policy option could be an

increase in the promotion of healthier

options. However, television advertising

is not the whole issue. Other areas of

concern are the composition of foods

aimed at children, labelling and catering.

An area of contention in policy is whether

the individual should be empowered to

make their own decisions or whether

legislation should be used to intervene.

Another issue is when voluntary

legislation should be used in place of

statutory control. The advantages of

voluntary legislation are speed and

flexibility. It is clear, however, that in

some areas legislation can be the best

solution, such as where consistency is

required in labelling.

4. ConclusionChildren’s diets are a very important issue

and doing nothing is not an option. It is

clear that promotions form part of the mix

of influences on children’s diet, which is a

clear reason for some intervention. Today,

the issue is how this should be tackled.

Guy Parker Director, Advertising Practice, Advertising Standards Authority1. BackgroundAdvertising in the UK is a mix of statutory

and self-regulatory legislation. The

Advertising Standards Authority (ASA)

applies to the non-broadcast sector and

is a self-regulatory code called the British

Code of Advertising and Sales Promotions.

The code is written by the Committee of

Advertising Practice, which represents

the marketing and media industry. The

code is not wholly voluntary in that if a

company is not a member of one of the

trade associations represented on the

Committee, it does not mean the company

is exempt from the Code.

Decisions on whether a breach has

taken place are taken by the ASA, which

is independent of the industry and

Government. The Code covers advertising,

sales promotion and direct marketing,

but not packaging, unless shown in an

advertisement.

2. Steps to Protect Children In the Code there is a section covering

children. Rules prohibit the encouragement

of pester power; showing children in

dangerous situations that may be

emulated; encouraging children to feel

inferior if they do not purchase; and

encouraging excessive consumption to

participate in promotions.

Specifically, the Code addresses the

advertising of food to children: ‘marketing

communications addressed to or targeted

at children should not actively encourage

them to eat or drink at or near bedtime,

to eat frequently throughout the day or

replace main meals with confection or

snack foods.’ There is no rule about the

volume of non-broadcast advertising to

children, which would be difficult to enforce.

3. SurveysThe ASA has considered less than ten

complaints since the food clause was

included in 1998 and the ASA are not

aware of any problem in this area. In

July 2003, the ASA carried out a survey

into marketing targeted at children.

The sample consisted of 475 original

press advertisements, over 100 internet

advertisements, 50 posters, 39 cinema

commercials and 34 on-pack sales

promotions. Six press advertisements

and one internet advertisement were

considered to have broken the code,

which were for technical breaches

that were not complained about. Nine

press advertisements were regarded as

questionable, all of these were in two

issues of a computer games magazine.

Seven of these contained adult content in

a publication with a large readership

aged under 16. The remaining two

adverts were for computer games that

were deemed to contain too much

blood and gore, which would breach the

code against encouraging anti-social

behaviour. The overall rate of compliance

was 97 per cent.

The issue of inappropriate advertisements

in computer game magazines where the

audience comprises children has also been

raised in another survey on internet

advertisements. In this survey the main

issue was advertisements for adult

services appearing on portals that

are also used by a significant number

of children.

4. ComplaintsDuring the first six months of 2003,

68 complaints about advertisements

targeted at children were heard by

the ASA Council and 22 of these were

investigated. Six of these were for food

and only one was upheld, as it was

a direct mailing targeted at children

deemed to be too young to decipher the

The methods that will be used are:

l Unstructured interviews regarding

the purchase, significance and

management of clothing.

l Observation of family activities, such

as family shopping.

l Clothing purchase diaries kept by

the family.

l Bi-monthly interviews on diary

entries.

l Photography by children of the

purchase process and use of clothing.

l Write and draw techniques for younger

children where other methods may not

be effective.

4. ConclusionThe knowledge that is being sought in

this research is based in three related

areas. First, the development of children

as active consumers of clothing, which

thereby clarifies debates about the

commodification of childhood and the

changing position of children with regard

to adults. It is expected that the results

shall show that children demonstrate

intelligence in their purchase choices.

Secondly, the ways in which the

consumption of children’s clothing is

mediated through general relations in the

household, peers and interaction of the

producers of clothes. Finally, there is the

political and cultural significance of the

expansion of consumption practices in

childhood. Specifically, this includes the

symbolic value of children’s clothing as

a form of social inclusion and exclusion

mediated by age, gender, ethnicity etc.

The point is to recognise that children are

not all the same but different.

Questions and Panel AnswersQ Why did you not discuss the

sexualisation of children’s clothing?

A It is not ruled out and it will be

engaged if it appears in the results. It

is an important issue and would be

included in the study of clothes and the

body. The interesting factor is whether

children or parents highlight it.

Q Is desire in food constructed in the same way as clothing, such as through inclusion and identity?

A As with clothes, this is a dynamic

issue between sellers and buyers

and is also a social dynamic. I also

believe that children are savvy media

consumers, but they are not able to

fully respond to the media with an

adult’s rationale. This is why we need

rules to protect children.

Q So this concerns children’s capacity to be responsible?

A Children have the skills to understand

commercial communications, but they

do not have the capacity to understand

the wider picture, such as the

motivation behind an advert.

Q The Food Commission ran a campaign called the ‘Parent’s Jury’ that was established one and a half years ago to represent parent’s concerns at food marketed at children. The flaw in arguing that responsibility falls on the parents is that they are not always in full control of children throughout the day. The media place a great deal of blame on parents, but blame should be spread across the whole sector of those involved in what children eat.

A This debate need not be a blame-game

whereby parts of society are singled

out. There are many problems that are

universal in their impact across the

world, but there is something specific to

the UK in part of this. This may be due

to the school dinner diet being worse.

The sexualisation of children’s clothes is

more extreme in British retailing than

elsewhere. Before blame is distributed,

it should be asked why British children

are more exposed in society than

those in other countries. Possible

reasons are the regulatory regimes,

long working hours and public service

reform. The debate often takes place

with an assumption of a purely free

market economy, however, in reality

consumption is collective in many

instances, such as with school meals.

Rosemary Hignett Head, Food Labelling Division, Food Standards Authority1. The IssueThe work being undertaken at the FSA

concerns what children are eating, which

is too much saturated fat, added sugar

and salt, and not enough fruit and

vegetables. Much survey work has been

carried out to see what children eat and

the statistics found have been shocking.

Less than half of school lunch boxes

contain fruit or vegetables. Ready meals

for children have been found to have a

very high salt content. These statistics

lead to an impact on children’s health in

both the short and long term.

The obesity statistics for children are

8 per cent of six year-olds and 15 per

cent of 15 year-olds. Obesity is more

concentrated in lower income groups.

2. CausesFood promotion and children’s diet form

only a part of the issue. With obesity,

activity is also an issue. Furthermore, diet

involves many different factors beyond

promotional activity. Thus, it is necessary

to have a range of activities to tackle

the issues.

The importance in schools is paramount,

which concerns education, understanding

nutrition, learning how to cook and

school dinners. However, this is not

enough as parents, industry and

marketing should also take a role.

The FSA’s approach is to look at the

evidence base. Two pieces of research

have been undertaken. The first focused

Food Standards Authority

Advertising Standards Authority




message. These figures are similar to the

same period in 2002 when 63 complaints

were heard and 23 investigated. A

potential reason for this is that people

tend to complain about individual

advertisements rather than categories

of advertisements.

The ASA is monitoring the public debate

on obesity and is not complacent because

very few complaints are received. Where

statements in advertising are made that

cannot be substantiated and where claims

play on the incredulity of children or

exploit the interests of parents, the ASA

will investigate.

The ASA is willing to take action

against large companies. For example,

in 2000 the ASA banned an advert by

SmithKlineBeecham. The ASA will also

act independently and proactively, rather

than only in response to a complaint, and

will take immediate action

where necessary.

The debate over food advertising is not

matched in complaints to the ASA. In

2002, the ASA received 1,200 complaints

about advertising and children, which is

the main area of concern to parents.

Ian Blair Deputy Director, Programmes and Advertising Group, Independent Television Commission1. BackgroundThe Independent Television Commission

(ITC) is soon to be replaced by Ofcom

(Office of Communications). Ofcom

is an aggregation of many different

communications regulators. It will

continue the practice of awarding licenses

to broadcast and to enforce codes, as

the previous individual regulators did

beforehand. However, Ofcom are currently

in consultation over proposals to

outsource the regulation of

broadcast advertising to the ASA. This

would be a co-regulatory partnership

and if approved would be implemented

in mid-2004. If this were to take place,

broadcast regulation would be self-

regulatory, although the regulator would

retain legal power and the power to

sanction broadcasters.

2. Broadcast Advertising RulesITC rules are designed to prevent

television adverts from misleading,

causing deep or widespread offence

or harm to viewers. The protection

of children is the most important

aspect of the ITC’s rules. All television

advertisements must be pre-cleared

because television advertising is deemed

to be so powerful and advertisements

are difficult to avoid. The Broadcast

Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC)

carries out pre-vetting on behalf of

broadcasters. However, the BACC look

at individual advertisements, not the

social context.

3. Rules to Protect ChildrenThe general rules to prevent misleading

advertising are supplemented by rules

to protect children’s inexperience and

credulity being exploited. There are

rules against encouraging bullying, to

prevent the encouragement of children

to risk physical or moral harm, or behave

in anti-social ways, and to limit the risk

of children pestering adults for products.

These types of rules can never be

completely effective. There are also rules

for advertisements of toys over £25 to

show their price, to prevent exploitation

from children’s attachments to particular

programmes, such as spin-offs, and to

prevent advertisements to make children

feel inferior because they do not have a

certain product.

4. Food AdvertisingThe rules make it clear that adverts

should not undermine progress to

national diet improvements, mislead or

confuse consumers or set bad examples

for children. On the other hand, the rules

reason that it cannot be expected to

perform the same role as public education

and information in promoting a varied

and balanced diet. Any nutrition and

health claims must be supported by

scientific evidence and advertisements

making such claims must not give

misleading impression of any dietary

benefits of using the product. Also,

advertisements must not encourage

excessive consumption, they must avoid

disparaging good dietary practice and any

product comparisons must not discourage

a selection of options such as fresh

fruit and vegetables. However, this does

not mean that the ITC can encourage

advertisements of these foods. Finally,

advertisements must not encourage poor

oral health.

5. Additional RulesCurrently, there is much debate about

these rules and whether to introduce

a new set to increase the control of

advertising to children, particularly in

relation to food. The ITC is open to

this debate.

Advertising of food to children is a public

policy debate, but viewers are generally

not engaged in taking part in debating

public policy. The ITC receives very few

complaints in this area, which is not

because viewers do not care, but most

probably because they do not know how

to engage in the debate. This is an area

that needs a solution.

It is important that a debate takes

place based on evidence and looks at

advertising in context. It is not the only

cause of a poor diet. The ITC welcomes

the contribution by the Hastings report

on the effect of promotion on children’s

diet. All facets of the argument need to

be looked at. The various contributory

factors of a poor diet and all evidence

needs to be considered before a

conclusion is reached on what measures

should be adopted to tackle this problem.

In its first few months, Ofcom will look

into this area.

Research shows that television

advertising is not the most powerful

influence on children’s desire for products.

The ITC has found that children quickly

learn to be advertising literate, which

parents often under estimate. Studies by

the ITC have led it to believe that its

rules are misleading and it is ready to

tackle this.

In relation to the debate of whether food

advertising should be banned for certain

products during certain programmes,

more research is necessary. It should

also be noted that children watch

far more programmes than children’s

television. Although childhood obesity is

a problem, it must be considered whether

banning advertisements from children’s

programmes would make a difference. It

requires a cautious approach balancing

the effect of a ban with the consequences

of restricting a large revenue source for

commercial television.

Regarding the argument that the context

of advertisements affects the degree

of absorption by children, there is no

evidence to support this. Thus, the

fundamental question concerns to what

extent this is a broad cultural problem or

a result of advertising on television.

Questions and Panel AnswersQ Do you have the power to regulate

the increase in sound volume of adverts?

A There are rules. The advertisers compact

more sound close together to increase

the volume.

Q Would the FSA consider a behavioural change campaign to tackle the issue of obesity?

A Spending more money on campaigns to

promote healthy eating is an option. If

the concern is that the healthy eating

message is being drowned out by

advertisements for less healthy food,

then we can either increase the number

of healthy messages or decrease the

number of unhealthy messages. The

problem is that increasing the healthy

diet message involves a large amount of

public money. Therefore, it is not likely

to be a solution.

Q Will the pre-vetting of advertising be lost with the transition to Ofcom? Is providing children’s television part of the public service broadcasting obligation?

A Pre-vetting will continue. Children’s

programmes are part of public service

broadcast obligations.

Q What will you do about computer gaming advertising through cookies?

A Cookies enable information to be stored

about a person who visits a website so

that they are recognised when they next

visit and enable banner advertisements

to be targeted to the individual. Third

party advertising servers provide this

advertising and the problem is that

they are often too indiscriminate in

targeting advertisements. They will

increasingly form part of the solution.

Q The Health Select Committee heard that Abbott Mead Vickers discussed pester power in a brief. What can be done against pester power? Will Ofcom be able to address these issues, which involve advertising agencies and companies?

A Advertising agencies are represented

by the Institute of Practitioners in

Advertising and they sign up to the

code, so agencies are also subject to

the rules. The Chief Executive of Abbott

Mead Vickers has admitted that it was

a mistake for the brief to contain a

reference to pester power. The ASA

would not condone this as their concern

is with the finished advertisement.

A That particular advert was released

with no evidence of pester power

present. All television adverts are

pre-cleared by the BACC, but they have

no power over what the brief contains

or on intention. They can only work on

the finished advertisement and not the

brief or the script.

Q Do self-regulatory bodies have the power to fine?

A ITC, the Radio Authority and Ofcom all

have the powers to fine broadcasters,

which is normally imposed for

consistent breaches or a very serious

breach. Ofcom will retain power to

impose fines, even under co-regulation.

A If advertisers are already bending

the rules, this strengthens the case

for statutory regulation in place of

self-regulation.

A The ASA’s rules are very similar to the

ITC and the Radio Authority. Decisions

taken are robust and the sanctions

laid out are effective. The ASA is

not seen as a soft alternative to the

statutory bodies.

Q Are there any ASA rules regarding the personal endorsement of products?

A There is no rule in the ITC or ASA

codes that prevent celebrities from

endorsing certain foods. There are rules

regarding endorsements, testimonials

and children. The majority of these

endorsements appear on television.

Q Do you have any influence over the collusion of programme makers and advertisers?

A There are rules to preserve the integrity

of programmes from spin-offs. This is

detailed and included in the code.

Q Regarding the Health Select Committee, the regulation currently looks at the finished product, so if there is no obvious breach then there is no problem. The

The Independent Television Commission




current practice of purely judging the finished product is deficient as in reality it is the way a communication is interpreted that is most important. How do you consider whether an advert has pester power and how it is interpreted?

A The public see the commercial and not

the brief. If the brief has been seen

by the BACC and there is an area of

contention, then the advertiser will be

warned which would result in this being

withdrawn from the final commercial.

It would be very contentious for

regulators to get involved before the

advert was made.

Q This area is complicated by the fact that although advertisers target children, the ultimate aim is for the parent to purchase the product. It is a debate over what is appropriate in the intended communication between the parent and the child as to what pester power is. The problem with the current codes is that they do not address the balance of advertising. They do not reflect the effect of advertising as a whole on behaviour.

A This is a very complex and difficult area

to define, thus it is difficult to detect.

Mary MacLeod

The secretary of State, Tessa Jowell,

had planned to be here for this seminar,

but had to withdraw. She sent a

message apologising for her absence,

saying how important this area is.

She feels that although advertising

is a factor contributing towards

obesity, there are other issues such as

exercise. This is why the Government

is committed to spending £459 million

on sports at schools over the next

three years. She believes the code on

advertising needs to be sufficient and

adhered to.

Jeremy Preston Director, Food Advertising Unit, Advertising Association1. BackgroundThe obese situation is well known. It

should be noted that adults are also obese

and the potential reasons underlying

that have been considered. Was it due to

television advertising during the 1970s?

The food and advertising industries are

often cited as the sole source of the

problem. However, the industry not only

wants to see the issue addressed but

also wishes to take part in providing a

long-term solution. Ten days ago, the

Advertising Association (AA), which

represents all major players in the UK,

issued a joint statement welcoming the

FSA consultation paper on policy.

2. ChallengesThe challenge is how the food and

advertising industries, government,

health and education professionals, and

parents can successfully address this

problem. A further challenge is to develop

plans that are based on sound facts and

not emotional responses. For example,

there is no evidence to support a ban on

advertising during children’s programmes.

In Quebec, where a ban has been in

place for Francophile children, the levels

of obesity are no lower than any other

Canadian province.

Regarding the Hastings Report, the issue

facing the food and advertising industries

was to ensure that it was fully robust

because of its impact. The Advertising

Association has commissioned two fully

independent academics to look into

the report. The remit of the report was

the promotion of food to children and

the report has mainly concentrated on

television advertising, which the press

has picked up on. The authors of the

report were only able to use 0.4 per cent

of all reference studies when there were

many studies on this topic. Furthermore,

the three most quoted references failed to

show evidence that television advertising

affected children’s diets, 75 per cent of

the studies used were over 11 years old,

and 40 per cent of the studies used were

more than 20 years old.

3. ChoicesOverweight and obesity are caused by

excessive eating and a lack of exercise.

The majority of the debate focuses on

excessive eating. Policy must be based on

a sound strategy with longevity. It must

consist of education, exercise, parenting

and diet, with education at the core. A

school curriculum should be developed to

promote healthy living.

Being a parent today is very difficult.

Recent research shows that 40 per cent of

parents believe that there is insufficient

information on labels, which is an area

that industry can help. The food industry

can and will develop healthy options,

but there must be consumer demand.

Government must assist by helping

children to exercise through assisting

schools in facilitating this.

All these choices have their own

challenges, which are mostly costs. All

members of society have a responsibility

to address the challenges and leave aside

the blame culture and pursue a strategy

that is practical, realistic and produces

qualified objectives.

Ed Mayo Chief Executive, The National Consumer Council1. IntrocuctionGandhi said ‘first they ignore you, then

they laugh at you, then they fight you

and then you win.’ We are currently in the

third phase. All the studies and debates

have concluded that a worsening diet

causes disorders that can decrease life

expectancy. The choices at the centre

of the debate appear to be individual

ones, but what is certain is that the

consequences are collective such as the

costs to the NHS, which is estimated to be

£2.1 million per year.

2. MythsThere are many myths in this debate. One

in particular is that there is no such thing

as a good food or a bad food. So how can

there be intervention in this issue? This is

pure sophistry and can be proved wrong,

not least because the advertising industry

is now increasingly promoting foods as

good or healthy.

3. Addressing the IssueThe four action points outlined by Jeremy

Preston are positive and it is clear that

we need a national strategy to pursue

the cause. The FSA is doing an effective

job, but it is essentially one step ahead of

Government and there is a need to bring

them up to speed. The National Consumer

Council (NCC) has been responsible

for bringing the issue of nutrition to

agricultural reform. All these ends

need to be tied so that there is a clear

sustainable vision for food and diet.

In addition to the four action points

already raised, there should be some

further points. The first concerns

regulation and the debate of whether to

ban food advertising aimed at children,

which has been ongoing. Today, there are

many more bodies campaigning against

television advertising, however, this will

not resolve obesity alone. Both statutory

and self-regulation can play a role, but

within a wider strategy. Fiscal measures

should be analysed in the same vein as

tobacco is taxed.

The motive of industry fighting during this

phase is interesting, as this initiative

does not mean that pocket money and

parental spending on children will decrease.

So there is scope for business to sell in a

socially responsible way, which is what

parents seek.

Paul Jackson Chairman, Media Smart1. Need for EducationHaving represented the advertising

industry in a debate with the European

Commission regarding responsible

advertising to children over the past two

years, it was explicit as to how highly

charged it is, how complex it is and that

there is no shared vision. The aim of

Media Smart was to find a shared vision,

which is based on education.

Media Smart is a media literacy

programme focused on advertising and

targets primary school children. The

programme provides in-school materials,

mapped to the national curriculum and

written by teachers with the aim of

helping children understand advertising.

Before launching the programme in 2002,

there was no media literacy education for

primary school children. It is a non-profit

organisation that uses the resources

of the advertising business, allied to

government requirements, with the help

of academic experts to address the needs

of parents to benefit children.

Advertisers recognise their responsibility

to actively help children critically

understand advertising in the context of

their daily lives.

2. Teaching PackThe first pack was completed in February

and has been distributed to 5,000

teachers. The teaching profession has

found the packs to be helpful. As a result,

a literacy expert group has been founded

that is chaired by Professor Buckingham

with the aim of bringing together the

knowledge of those teaching children.

3. Advertising LiteracyMedia Smart is focused on advertising

literacy. It is not fundamentally

concerned with the food advertising

debate. Parents, who are under

represented on the analysis of the impact

of policy on children, have a crucial role

to play in this debate. Parents also have

a critical role to play in media literacy

and the development of media literacy

programmes. Experts agree that children

benefit from having their parents watch

television with them in order to dissect

the complex messages that are common.

When Media Smart was established it

worked with the European Parents

Association and the National Confederation

of Parent and Teachers Associations,

which became a charity partner, and they

have become closely involved in the

formation of the programme.

3. Media Smart’s AimsMedia Smart calls for all stakeholders in

the debate to work together. The model

that has been developed by Media Smart

is the best way forwards as it brings

the stakeholders together. Furthermore,

empowering children and families is an

important part of the solution. Media

Smart also hopes that the NFPI will use its

knowledge to inform this debate.

Panel Discussion: The Way Forward, Choices and Challenges

Advertising Association

The National Consumer Council

Media Smart




Media Smart is intent on becoming a

world standard programme and is in

the process of expanding into Ireland,

Germany, France and Belgium.

Steve Hilton Director, Good Business1. About Good BusinessThe response of the industry and

government to the marketing issue

has been complacent, defensive and

superficial. The role of Good Business

is to work with companies on some of

the superficial elements. There are some

companies that are looking at this issue

very seriously and creating serious

responses that may not be

easily detected.

2. Furthering the DebateThe debate on obesity needs to move

beyond the energy equation argument.

There have been massive social changes

over the past 40 years that have resulted

in less daily exercise. The idea that

these can be remedied by a few hours

extra activity is preposterous. Activity

does need to be encouraged, but the

intake of energy also needs to be

reduced. The production and promotion

of energy-dense food has grown over

the past few years and this needs to be

addressed. Education is not the sole

answer to these issues. It does not

account for factors such as poverty.

An issue that is often neglected is

interference in parental decision-making.

Within the broader context of the debate,

it is easy to blame business for these

types of social problems. What needs to

be remembered is that we need business

to be successful for the progression of

the economy, thus it is essential to

ensure businesses make profits but in the

right way.

3. The Power of BusinessBusinesses do not have the objective of

harming society for the sake of profit.

Companies have experts who are aware

of the social consequences of what the

company produces, however these are

not the same people who make decisions

about new products and promotions.

Good Business aims to unite the different

experts and managers within a company

to inform decision-making at the

marketing level. This involves breaking

down cultural barriers that will not be

achieved through regulation.

The power of business should be

harnessed to do good. This can take

place through innovation of products and

services that help parents and the use of

brands to change attitudes and behaviour.

A blanket ban on advertising would result

in the loss of a very powerful weapon

that could be used to change the habits

of children.

The work of the NFPI is a good example of

how this issue can be solved as it provides

information to marketers of what parents

want. Marketing companies survey

their customers all the time, but do not

necessarily ask the same questions that

the NFPI would.

4. ConclusionThe approach should be to encourage

companies to do what parents deem to

be positive. If a regulatory approach is

taken, then companies will simply do the

minimum that is required. They should

become allies such that they use their

resources to help parents to bring up

their children in a responsible fashion.

Questions and Panel AnswersQ Do companies address consumer

needs? Do they create a market rather than reflect it? Although we want companies to make producfits, social capital also needs to be addressed, which is the

responsibility of the state. The Advertising Association should not justify their position by saying that a solution consists of four different points, when they have to play their part in the solution as well. Regarding the social responsibility of companies, one has to question their motives.

A Regarding the development of markets,

it is not true that markets are created

with ease. It requires significant

amounts of money to develop a

product that meets consumer needs,

let alone the amount of risk involved

in developing new markets. It is a fact

that most new products fail.

It is not true that companies only want

to market and produce unhealthy foods.

There are many companies that spend a

great deal on developing healthy products.

Q If Media Smart does not tackle food advertising specifically, how can it be seen as a way forward with regards to obesity? Also, has there been any independent evaluation on this initiative to find out whether it has had a positive impact on children’s food choices?

A Media Smart focused on advertising

literacy simply for the need to find an

area to focus upon, as this is a complex

area to educate within. The model

that is used is based on the Concerned

Children’s Advertisers (CCA), which

teaches media literacy alongside a

social programme. When Media Smart

was established wide consultation took

place on where efforts should be placed

and the result was a demand for focus

on advertising literacy.

Media Smart was launched with a

response of derision. At the time

Channel Four carried out a critique of

Media Smart and found that banning

advertising was not the answer and

education was.

A Much of this discussion is similar to

that which took place in America

during the 1930s when business

viewed the consumer movement as

attacking it. Without government

support in representing consumers,

all the effort to produce a coalition

between consumers and business

were ineffective. Thus, this is not a

debate between bad business and good

consumers. For these efforts to be

beneficial a political infrastructure is

required that gives consumers greater

representation and includes the

regulatory bodies.

A There is a parallel between this

discussion and that of environmental

issues. The government was asked by

BP, which had taken environmental

initiatives, for greater legislation as it

was being undercut by freeloaders.

Q The focus of the debate has been on obesity, but the effect of advertising on family budgets should also be heeded. The Treasury is currently undertaking a review of child poverty. Is there any evidence of the way in which different households make purchases in relation to advertising? There could be the case that those families under more financial and social pressure could be more susceptible to pester power, further accentuating the pressure on an overstretched budget.

A Government focus on poverty has been

on the public service and income side,

not expenditure. One of the reasons is

that families spend their money in the

private market, which makes it difficult

for the government to have a consistent

approach. I do not think there has

been specific research of marketing on

the low-income consumer, although,

there has been research on particular

strategies on vulnerable people.

The NCC are currently undertaking

research on the credit and lending

market. The adage that the poor pay

more still holds true today and is

particularly so for credit.

A Those in poverty are not those

consuming the brands talked about

in this debate. They are more likely

to purchase cheaper goods from

companies where the food is likely to

be more harmful than the companies

that are traditionally associated with

this debate. Thus, these sellers arguably

need to be watched more than others.

A There is evidence for the effectiveness

of a ban and there are three territories

in the world where this exists—Norway,

Sweden and Quebec. Although there

is no evidence for Norway and Sweden,

there is of the effectiveness of the ban

in Quebec (Goldberg 1990).

A There is no ban on advertising to

children in Norway. In Sweden,

advertising has never been aimed

at children. Furthermore, a recent

Euromonitor report has shown that their

eating behaviour is probably one of

the worst in Europe. They have one the

fastest growing obesity levels amongst

children and high levels of anorexia.

Also, because there is no advertising

ban, marketers use different

promotion channels.

Q In Quebec, the ban is for francophone households only.

Regarding the issue of children being less active, our approach is that you should not take away a child’s volition in what they choose to do in their own time. There is a great deal of paternalism in a ban. The answer is education aimed at both children and parents. Do you think that the advertising industry has a responsibility to be involved in education in order to provide the information required to understand an advert, such as nutritional information?

A The issue is how to decide what a good

food is and what a bad food is. The

FSA says that foods should not be

demonised as too much of any type

of food is bad. Therefore, we must

be careful not to stigmatise a food

just because it is less healthy than

another. Furthermore, eating at a fast

food restaurant such as McDonalds

is a better place to eat than many

independent fast food restaurants. I do

not agree that there should be a health

warning on a product that is advertised

on television.

A Regarding the earlier reference to this

problem being specifically a British

problem, this is not true. The country

in Europe with the worst child obesity

records is Italy.

A health warning response is not the

right approach, but that is not to say

that advertisements cannot do more to

promote healthier eating and lifestyles.

For this to work it must be for a product

that has consumer appeal. Companies

need to be encouraged to treat the

promotion of healthy lifestyles in the

same way they have hitherto treated

mainstream product development and

marketing. In fact, it is probably not

wise to say something is healthy, as this

would lose demand amongst children.

McDonalds are currently doing this.

The way forward is to produce products

that meet and develop consumers’

needs and have a positive effect on

lifestyle. For example, McDonalds serves

carrot sticks rather than French Fries

in Sweden. Furthermore, McDonalds

are aware of the issues regarding

super-sizing of products. There needs

to be a fusion of commercial and

social interests.

Additionally, there is also a great deal

of responsibility in this area resting

with the media.



Good Business


A Toy advertising is deeply concerning,

particularly during the festive season.

In many cases, many of the adverts are

very stereotypical and sexist.

Q The large number of advertisements during a commercial break in children’s programmes is also concerning.

A Regarding the poverty issue, Sustain

has been running a project concerning

sensitivity to brands. The experience of

the families concerned suggests that

although the families cannot afford to

consistently buy brands, their children

are extremely brand sensitive.

It is difficult to consider that teaching

children to understand advertising

justifies advertising targeted to children.

A It has been reported that McDonalds,

which has an alliance with Coca Cola

will withdraw Coke from the option on

‘Happy Meals.’ This proves that pressure

groups can make an impact.

Q Can the panel comment on commercialisation and its impact on children?

A It is definite that industry has a very

large and positive role to play in this

debate. Industry is consumer led and

they will listen to what has been said

during this debate. The AA has an open

mind and is willing to play its part in

this dynamic situation.

A The television advertising ban is aimed

at pre-school children, and it cannot

be accepted that this is overly

paternalistic. Furthermore, it will

focus on unhealthy foods that can be

scientifically proven to be so in relation

to nutritional profiles.

Media Smart should not be presented as

the solution. It is a welcome beginning

to helping with media literacy. Also, it

is a fallacy that education can take the

place of regulation. It will take time,

but the consumer movement will bring

about these changes as long it has the

support that has been outlined.

A The consumer society is a good thing

that creates wealth to fund public

services that we all benefit from.

However, this system could be better

and the negative impacts need to be

minimised. The best way to do this is

to change the culture of the marketing

community through bringing to their

attention the findings of constructive

surveys to help them understand

consumers.

A Media Smart are seeking to create a

world-class media literacy programme

and requires the help of all involved.

It is doing something that will make

a difference.

A From the perspective of the NFPI, this

is the beginning. We have built upon

the work over the past four years to

establish the influence of parents.

Today’s debate has shown how complex

this issue is as well as how vitally

important for children’s health and for

their families’ wellbeing. Education

is not the only solution. But there are

fundamental questions about rights

and responsibilities over regulation.

One of the most perplexing questions

to be addressed in finding ways forward

is the construction of desire. The

research we previewed at this seminar*

recommends ways forward, to which

this seminar has contributed.

* ‘Hard sell, soft targets?,’ published with this conference report.

Hard sell soft targets parents talk about marketing to children report

Government & Nonprofit

Transcript of Hard sell soft targets parents talk about marketing to children report