Upload
instituto-alana
View
218
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/22/2019 A Tangled Web for Web: Marketing to Children
1/20
A tangled webMarketing to children
Jillian Pitt
8/22/2019 A Tangled Web for Web: Marketing to Children
2/20
Consumer Focus
About Consumer Focus
Consumer Focus is the statutory
consumer champion for England, Wales,
Scotland and (for postal consumers)
Northern Ireland.
We operate across the whole of the
economy, persuading businesses,public services and policy makers to put
consumers at the heart of what they do.
Consumer Focus tackles the issues
that matter to consumers, and aims to
give people a stronger voice. We dont
just draw attention to problems we
work with consumers and with a range
of organisations to champion creative
solutions that make a difference to
consumers lives.
Acronymns used in the report
AA Advertising AssociationASA Advertising Standards AuthorityBCAP Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice
CAP Committee of Advertising Practice
DMA Direct Marketing Association
DMC Direct Marketing Commission
EACA European Association of Communication Agencies
EASA European Advertising Standards Alliance
ESOMAR European Society of Market Research
IAB Internet Advertising Bureau
ICC International Chamber of Commerce
ISBA Incorporated Society of British Advertisers
ISP Institute of Sales Promotion
MRS Market Research Society
POPAI Point of Purchase Advertising International
WFA World Federation of Advertisers
8/22/2019 A Tangled Web for Web: Marketing to Children
3/20
Marketing to children
Contents
Executive summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Why it matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Codes, principles and regulatory practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Inconsistencies and gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8/22/2019 A Tangled Web for Web: Marketing to Children
4/20
4 Consumer Focus
This report researches current regulation andhighlights where children are not adequatelyprotected by either the law or industry self-regulation. The aim is to try and disentangle thecomplexity of the regulatory landscape for parentson how they can best protect their children fromunwanted advertising and for businesses tocomply with statutory codes when trying to best
protect children.
The coalition Government has indicated
it will take action to protect children fromexcessive commercialisation and crack downon irresponsible marketing. Consumer Focusrecognises that there have been recentdevelopments by industry to further protectchildren but certain gaps do still remain.
We have used research on the regulatorylandscape to propose recommendations forhow children can be better protected and havehighlighted where the gaps and inconsistencies liewithin present regulations.
Three key issues highlighted by our research are:
1 Codes of practice are dispersed across awide range of bodies. At least 20 differentself-regulatory and statutory codes ofpractice relate to marketing and advertisingpractices, data protection, research,
privacy and parental involvement. These aresupplemented with ad-hoc trade associationcodes of practice and initiatives related to,for example, the marketing of food and
drinks high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS)
2 There is a lack of transparency in howthe various regulatory and self-regulatorybodies relate to each other. The lack of anoverall monitoring mechanism for integratedmarketing campaigns targeted at children
further compounds the issue
3 Consumer Focus calls for greatertransparency in the process used toimplement existing codes and developingnew ones
We would like to see the current systemconsolidated and simplied with gaps andinconsistencies addressed to make it easier for
advertisers to navigate their way through and put
childrens needs at the heart of what they do.
Our recommendations are to:
Executive summary
8/22/2019 A Tangled Web for Web: Marketing to Children
5/20
5Marketing to children
simplify the whole process and ask tradeassociations to relate their membersguidelines specically to the AdvertisingStandards Authority (ASA)
align the denition of a child as under 16 forall codes
tackle the issue of identifying children andtheir parents online
have a uniform system of labelling onlinemarketing communication
regulate brand ambassadors within theASA and ban this practice for under 16s
clarify the position for wishlists
put the onus on industry to make it clear tochildren and their parents which marketing
techniques are used and what they aredesigned to do
call on ASA to further extend the Committeeof Advertising Practices (CAPs) digital remitto cover brands and logos appearing byassociation and marketing communicationsin foreign media, and to include sponsorship,packaging and point of sale within the widerremit of ASA
make specic provision for children in
privacy legislation
8/22/2019 A Tangled Web for Web: Marketing to Children
6/20
6 Consumer Focus
In recent years the use of integrated marketingtechniques and digital technology to marketproducts to children has increased signicantly.Integrated marketing techniques encompass arange of different media including TV, the internetand direct mail; and digital technologies suchas SMS. A number of regulatory problems havebecome apparent as traditional distinctions
between different media have become blurred.There is no single transparent set of standardsand procedures governing either contemporaryintegrated marketing techniques or how productsare marketed to children.
Marketing to children in the UK must complywith three pieces of EU legislation and an Ofcomrule as well as the substantial codes of practice
of the two main UK co-regulatory bodies: theCommittee of Advertising Practice (CAP) and theBroadcast Committee of Advertising Practice(BCAP). The Ofcom rule comes under theBCAP code. Members of the Market Research
Society (MRS), the Direct Marketing Association(DMA), the Internet Advertising Bureau (IBA)and a growing number of other marketingtrade organisations are also bound by otherindustry-specic codes of practice. There hasalso been a recent proliferation of new statutoryand voluntary initiatives addressing how foodand drinks high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) aremarketed to children.
Companies have to invest signicant time and
resources to making sure they are compliantwith legislation, regulations and industry-speciccodes of practice. This can be difcult and evenimpractical for new or small companies and thoseunaware of, or unafliated to, trade bodies. Itis also highly unlikely parents are fully informedof the regulations designed to protect childrenor of where they can complain if they think amarketing campaign is irresponsible. It is equallydifcult for consumer interest groups to ascertainif campaigns are not complying with legislation,
regulations or codes of practice.
Introduction
8/22/2019 A Tangled Web for Web: Marketing to Children
7/20
7Marketing to children
Children as consumers
In the UK, 105 billion a year is spent on children1.Worldwide, this gure is US$2 trillion2. Whilecompanies selling products aimed at childrenare eager to prot from this market, consumerinterest groups are keen to prevent children from
being exploited. The rise in the number of obesechildren has turned a particularly bright spotlight
on the marketing of HFSS food and drinks. TheBuckingham report Impact of the commercialworld on childrens wellbeingcommissioned bythe previous Government concludes that thepublic is not well informed about the effect ofmarketing campaigns on children, and someareas of regulation are insufcient3. The currentcoalition Government has stated its intention toaddress irresponsible marketing aimed at children.
Contemporary marketing practices
In the past, separate self-regulatory bodies usedto have discrete codes of practices regulatingand monitoring specic media. For example,advertising was monitored by the AdvertisingStandards Authority (ASA).
This regulatory model is now insufcient foroverseeing complex integrated marketingcampaigns that encompass a range of differentmedia (for example TV, internet, direct mail
and posters). This is sometimes referred to as360 degree marketing because a campaignsmessages surround the consumer on all sides.For example, a TV advertising campaign may tellconsumers they can nd a code on a productpack which can be keyed into a website where
they can take a survey and pass on messagesabout the product to other consumers. Whilethese activities make up a single integratedmarketing campaign, the separate elements areregulated by different advertising, sales promotion,
internet advertising and market research codesof practice. And, the viral part of the campaign(passing product messages between consumers)is not regulated at all. Consequently, it is bothdifcult for a company to know if an entire
campaign abides by all of the regulations, and fora consumer to know which body to complain to ifthey are unhappy.
Why it matters
1 Liverpool Victoria (2010). The cost of raising a child tops200,000 (Press release, 23 February 2010). Available at:http://bit.ly/c3P9lh (accessed 5 July 2010)
2 Lindstrom, M. (2004). Brandchild: Remarkable insights intothe minds of kids and their relationship with todays global
brands. Kogan Page. London3 DCSF (2009). The impact of the commercial world on
children's wellbeing: report of an independent assessment.Available at: http://bit.ly/a1UNcu (accessed 5 July, 2010).London. DCSF
8/22/2019 A Tangled Web for Web: Marketing to Children
8/20
8 Consumer Focus
Digital platforms
The rapid development of digital technologiessuch as the internet, SMS, Bluetooth andinteractive billboards have further blurred thetraditional denitions of marketing activities andconsumer touch-points (places where marketing
messages appear). The recent extension of thedigital remit of the CAP code goes some way to
ensuring children and young people are protectedonline. From March 2011, the ASA will regulateadvertisers own marketing communicationson their own websites and in other non-paid-for space online. However, there still remains anumber of exclusions outside the remit of theCAP code such as marketing communicationscontained within editorial content and foreignmedia, ie websites that originate from countries
outside the UK.
The recently launched Childrens EthicalCommunications Kit (Check) website goes someway to provide a one-stop-shop for businesses to
nd out the rules which apply when marketing tochildren across platforms in a simple and straightforward way.
But statutory regulations have struggled to keeppace with digital practices and this has resulted ina urry of stop-gap best practice guides and codes
of practice from various industry bodies, includingthe European Advertising Standards Alliance(EASA)4 and the Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB)5,which, although well meant, have limited inuenceand can be confusing for both companies, thepublic and consumer interest groups.
When people subscribe to a website, vastamounts of information about them can nowbe collected quickly and easily using cookies.Consequently, complying with privacy legislationhas become an issue for companies. At presentUK and European privacy laws do not make anyspecic provision for children.
4 EASA (2009). Digital marketing communications bestpractice. Available at: http://bit.ly/b7WSqU(accessed 5 July, 2010). EASA
5 IAB IAB good practice principles for online behaviouraladvertising. Available at: http://bit.ly/dDjkJQ (accessed 5July 2010). IAB
8/22/2019 A Tangled Web for Web: Marketing to Children
9/20
9Marketing to children
Codes
Marketing to children is governed by statutoryregulation (the law) and self-regulation by industrybodies. At least 20 substantial codes of practiceapply to marketing aimed at children. Theseexist across both statutory regulation and self-
regulation (see Figure 1). This list does not includeguidelines drawn up by smaller trade bodies orsome of the voluntary principles created by food
and drinks companies.
Some of the codes of practice are internationallyapplicable, for example, the United NationsConvention on the Rights of the Child andthe International Chamber of CommercesConsolidated Advertising and Communications
Code. Others are enforceable across Europe, forexample, consumer protection regulations andprivacy laws. The UK also has its own codes ofpractice, for example, the CAPs self-regulationcode of practice and Ofcoms ruling on marketingHFSS food and drinks to children.
Some US codes of practice have been adoptedby UK companies, although these are not legally
binding in the UK. These include the ChildrensOnline Privacy and Protection Act. There are alsoother international voluntary codes of practice onmarketing food and drinks to children that someof the major multi-national companies have signedup to. These do inuence how they globallymarket such products to children.
Legislation
The 1990 United Nations Convention on theRights of the Child (UNCRC) was the rstinternational human rights treaty that grantschildren (under the age of 18) a comprehensiveset of rights covering civil, cultural, economic,
political and social matters. The UK signed theconvention in 1990, and it came into force in1992. It is used to guide UK policies concerning
children across education, law and order, familypolicy and even play. The convention draws onthe Declaration of the Rights of the Child by theUN General Assembly on 20 November 1959:The child, by reason of his physical and mental
immaturity, needs special safeguards and care,
including appropriate legal protection. Therefore
children everywhere have the basic human right tobe protected including in the context of marketingand advertising targeted at them.
Codes, principles and regulatorypractices
8/22/2019 A Tangled Web for Web: Marketing to Children
10/20
10 Consumer Focus
EUdirective
95/46/EC
The DataProtectionAct 1998
EUdirective
2002/58/EC
Privacy and ElectronicCommunicationsRegulations 2003
EUdirective
2005/29/EC
The consumer Protectionfrom Unfair TradingRegulations 2008
InformationCommissioner
InformationCommissioner
ASA/OFT
EU directive UK law Monitoring body
Figure 1: Legislation relating to marketing aimed at children
There are three EU directives, three pieces of UKlegislation and an Ofcom ruling that companiesmust adhere to. The legislation is shown in Figure 1.
The EU Directive 95/46 was enacted as the 1998Data Protection Act in the UK. The InformationCommissioner oversees compliance with thislegislation. More recently, the EU Directive2002/58 was enacted as the 2003 Privacy and
Electronic Communications Regulations, and thisis also overseen by the Information Commissioner.Both of these relate to the collection and useof personal data. However, there are no specialsafeguards or provision for children within these
two pieces of legislation. This is a major gapwhich requires urgent EU action.
EU Directive 2005/29 became the ConsumerProtection from Unfair Trading Regulations in theUK in 2008 and is important because it specicallyoutlaws marketing communications which exhortchildren to ask their parents to buy them goods orservices by encouraging pester power. This hasbeen incorporated into the CAP and BCAP codesof practice6. These are regulated by the ASA andare enforceable by the Ofce of Fair Trading (OFT).
A recent co-regulation between BCAP andOfcom, which came into being in 2007, has givenOfcom the powers to ban television advertising ofHFSS food and drinks in and around programmesof particular appeal to under 16s.
6 CAP code of practice section 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7; BCAP codeof practice section 5.9, 5.10 and 5.14
8/22/2019 A Tangled Web for Web: Marketing to Children
11/20
11Marketing to children
EASA
MRS ESOMAR CAP BCAP DMA
Standards
Board
Professional
standards
Committee
ASA DMC
EU
pledge
ICC WFA
EACA
AA
IAB ISP
ISBA POPAI
Regulatory practices
The majority of the codes of practice relatingto advertising and marketing to children areregulated by industry or as part of a co-regulatory agreement between statutory bodiesand industry rather than legislation enforceable
in law. Figure 2 shows how Consumer Focusunderstands these self-regulatory bodies relateto each other there is no known ofcial record
of this relationship. The main codes of practiceare shown in brown with their relevant monitoringbodies shown in red. The yellow circles denotethe major trade bodies, some of which have theirown members codes of practice.
Acronyms
AA Advertising AssociationASA Advertising Standards AuthorityBCAP Broadcast Committee of Advertising
PracticeCAP Committee of Advertising Practice
DMA Direct Marketing AssociationDMC Direct Marketing CommissionEACA European Association of
Communication AgenciesEASA European Advertising Standards
AllianceESOMAR European Society of Market ResearchIAB Internet Advertising BureauICC International Chamber of Commerce
ISBA Incorporated Society of BritishAdvertisers
ISP Institute of Sales PromotionMRS Market Research SocietyPOPAI Point of Purchase Advertising
InternationalWFA World Federation of Advertisers
Figure 2: Main bodies making codes of practice
8/22/2019 A Tangled Web for Web: Marketing to Children
12/20
12 Consumer Focus
The source for the majority of current marketingcodes of practice appears to be the Advertisingand Marketing Commission of the InternationalChamber of Commerce (ICC) who rst publisheda code of practice in 1937. The ICC has manythousands of corporate members across arange of industries. It could best be described asperforming on a global stage a role similar to that
of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) inBritain. The ICCs codes of practice on advertisingand marketing are continually updated, and the2006 code of practice is currently being reviewed.
The following bodies codes of practice appear toderive from the ICC and these have either beenreviewed or are under review in 2010:
CAP Code (2010) BCAP Code (2010)
DMA Code (2003)
MRS Code of Conduct (2010)
ESOMAR International Code on Social and
Market Research (2007)
The BCAPs code of practice applies to broadcastadvertising TV and radio while CAPs appliesto non-broadcast marketing and advertising, forexample sales promotion and many aspects ofdirect marketing (see Annexes 5 and 6). Despite
the trends in integrated marketing practices,the codes of practice remain separate and thisis in part due to their heritages. The CAP hasbeen in existence since 1961 and the ASA, anindependent body funded by the advertisingindustry, has administered the code since 1962.BCAP is a relatively new body having been setup in 2004 when the ASAs remit was expandedto cover broadcast advertisements (previouslythe subject of a separate statutory regime).The Communications Act of 2003 gave Ofcom
statutory responsibility for broadcasting standards
which it then contracted out to the ASA. Thisarrangement is now co-regulatory.
Signicantly, the ASA was unable to investigatemore than 2000 consumer complaints in2009 because they related to commercialcommunications on companies own websitesand, therefore, fell outside its remit of advertisingin paid-for space (for example TV, newspapersand billboards). In 2010, after lengthyconsultations with industry, the AdvertisingAssociation-led Digital Media Group proposed acode of practice to cover advertising on company
websites and other non paid-for spaces. This isnow under the jurisdiction of the ASA as part ofthe extended remit of the CAP code which willcome into play in March 2011.
8/22/2019 A Tangled Web for Web: Marketing to Children
13/20
13Marketing to children
Independent authorities monitor the BCAP andCAP codes of practice. Compliance with theseis monitored by the ASA. The CAPs code ofpractice is legally enforced by the OFT under theConsumer Protection Unfair Trading Regulations2008 and the Business Protection from MisleadingMarketing Regulations 2008. The BCAPs codeof practice is co-regulated by Ofcom. In this way,
these codes of practice apply to any company.
The other codes of practice apply only to the
members of each organisation, and are self-monitored. For example, the Direct MarketingAssociation (DMA) members conduct is overseenby the Direct Marketing Commission (DMC),and the MRS and European Society of MarketResearch (ESOMAR) have compliance councils
within their own organisations.
Codes of practice within each discipline emanatefrom the ICC and lter down through theregulatory bodies in the UK and the EASA actsas a unifying voice for advertising self-regulationacross Europe.
However, as we have seen, the marketingindustry includes a multitude of diverse activities
such as sponsorship, sales promotion, in-schoolmarketing and press advertising. Each activityhas spawned a trade association representingand supporting its members and the number ofsuch bodies continues to mushroom in responseto new digital marketing channels. Recent groupsinclude the Mobile Marketing Association (MMA),the Mobile Broadband Group (MBG) and theWord of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA).Each is anxious to demonstrate it has a setof guidelines that functions in their members
interests and shows their worth.
Spending on internet advertising overtookbroadcast advertising for the rst time in 2009 andthe IAB has been very proactive in creating bestpractice guidelines for its members. However,these guidelines are not independently policedor sanctioned in the same way as the CAP andBCAP codes of practice. Moreover, broadcastand non-broadcast advertising remain within twoseparate codes of practice with slightly differentregulatory mechanisms.
Another layer of complexity has been added bythe food and drinks industries response to thegrowing numbers of obese children. There are
initiatives instigated by companies acting alone,for example, the PepsiCo Policy on ResponsibleAdvertising and Marketing to Children. And there
are those introduced by certain bodies, often asa condition of membership for those bodies, forexample, the EU Pledge.
A 2010 review by the National Heart Forumfor the Department of Health identied 24such pledges that operate variously on anational or global basis (see Annex 1). Codesof practice initiated by specic industries dohave the advantage of the full cooperation of
the companies that sign up to them whereasregulations can often meet with opposition.However, these codes of practice and pledgesare only as good as the monitoring system thatensures compliance. Companies that do not signup are, in the main, inadequately monitored.
8/22/2019 A Tangled Web for Web: Marketing to Children
14/20
14 Consumer Focus
The existence of too many codes of practice hasled to inconsistencies and gaps being created.At the same time, the complicated maze createdby these many codes of practice does notadequately reect the rapidly moving integratedmarketing practices used today. In the UK, thereare still separate codes of practice for broadcastand non-broadcast advertising. This section takes
the relevant parts of the ICC Consolidated Code,from which the other main codes of practice seemto stem, and examines the problematic areasrelating to marketing aimed at children.
The age of a child
One of the most fundamental problems withthe current system of regulation is the differentages used to dene a child. The ICC omitted a
denition of a child when writing the consolidatedcode in 2006. As a result, many of the codes of
practice include a variety of ages between 12 and18, although some do not specify an age at all(see Annex 2).
Greater consistency of dening the age of achild would be helpful and less confusing thanthe current arbitrary system used by some. Forexample, certain brand names may have a policy
to target their advertising messages to children of12 and over but CAP and BCAP codes dene achild as a person up to the age of 16.
Outside of the main CAP and BCAP codes ofpractice, the guidelines drawn up by industrybodies and companies, for example the IAB andEuropean Advertising Standards Alliance (EACA)tend only to offer protection to children up to 12
or 13 several years adrift of the UNCRC andkey UK codes of practice. It is likely that thesebodies are following the lead of a key piece ofUS legislation that came into effect in 2000,Childrens Online Privacy and Protection Act(COPPA) dening children as being under the ageof 13. Unlike European governments, the FederalTrade Commission (FTC) in the US has introducedspecial restrictions on the collection and use ofonline data from children.
The CAP and BCAP clearly dene a child as
under 16, although some of the new food anddrinks regulations strangely only apply to primary
and pre-school children. For example, certainsections of the recently revised BCAP code of practice
state promotional offers, licensed characters and
celebrities popular with children may not be used
in HFSS product advertisements targeted directly
at pre-school or primary school children [that is
those under the age of 12] on TV or radio. It also
says HFSS products cannot aim nutritional or health
claims at these children. Certain sections of the
CAPs code of practice contain the same prohibition
concerning the use of licensed characters, celebrities
and promotional offers in advertisements aimed at
pre-school and primary school children but do not
prohibit them from making health or nutritional claims.
It is not clear why the age limit, dened elsewhere
in the CAP and BCAP codes of practice as 16, has
been relaxed for celebrity endorsement, promotions
and health claims. Interestingly, Ofcoms regulation
regarding the advertising of HFSS food and drinks
applies to television programmes aimed at under 16s.Furthermore, it is also not clear why the CAP and BCAP
are unaligned in the area of health and nutrition claims.
Inconsistencies and gaps
8/22/2019 A Tangled Web for Web: Marketing to Children
15/20
15Marketing to children
Inexperience and credulity
The ICC Consolidated Code reects the UNCRCin that it says children have particular rightsbecause they are more vulnerable than adults. Acore principle is the protection of children fromadvertising that may exploit their inexperience
and credulity. This is in Article 18 of the ICCConsolidated Code (Annex 3), and point three
states marketing communications directed tochildren should be clearly distinguishable to themas such.
Advertisements on television are obviouslydistinguishable because they occur during a breakin programmes, and children from a young ageare able to tell the difference between advertisingand programming.
However, this distinction is less clear in the digital
space. Recent research7 showed that only 37
per cent of advertisements on the UKs favourite
childrens websites were labelled as such; 21 per
cent were integrated into the content (with only
17 per cent of these labelled as advertisements);
and even 16-year-olds were unable to identify
the commercial intent of certain newer types of
advertising such as product placement, where a
product is mentioned within a television programme;advergames, where a child engages in a branded
game whose purpose is to create brand awareness
and emotional attachment; viral marketing, where
children are encouraged to send branded messages
to friends and family; blog seeding, where children
are encouraged to write favourable messages about
a brand on blogs; and social networking skins,
where children choose branded decorations for the
social networking home page.
Other research has shown that, when acommercial message is not recognised as such,brand associations are processed implicitly. Theeffect of the advertisement operates without achilds conscious awareness or control8. This is
clearly undesirable.
As a result of the extended digtial remit of theCAP code, from March 2011 rules will nowapply to advertisements and other marketingcommunication within companies own websites
and within other non-paid-for space.
7 Fielder, A. Gardner, W. Nairn, A. and Pitt, P. (2007). Fairgame? Assessing commercial activity on childrens favourite
websites and online environments. London. NationalConsumer Council and Childnet International. See alsoAuty, S. And Lewis, C. (2004) Exploring childrens choice:the reminder effect of product placement, Psychology andMarketing, 21 (9), p. 697713
8 Nairn A. and Fine C. (2008). Whos messing with my mind?The implications of dual process models for the ethics ofadvertising to children, International Journal of Advertising,Vol. 27, No. 3 p. 447470
8/22/2019 A Tangled Web for Web: Marketing to Children
16/20
16 Consumer Focus
Avoidance of harm
The ICC Consolidated Code Article 18 says
marketing aimed at children should not result inharm mentally, morally or physically.
Ofine, this principle is well policed by the ASAin the UK. Chapter 5 of the BCAPs code ofpractice contains a number of clauses protectingchildren from various forms of harm and, indeed,
the CAPs code of practice echoes the words ofthe ICC code almost exactly9. However, recentresearch shows a quarter of advertisements onchildrens favourite websites were for productswith a legal age limit (16, 17 or 18). These includegambling, cosmetic surgery, obtaining creditand intimate dating10. These constitute potentialharm for children and mean monitoring of internetadvertising is less well developed than that inother areas.
Social values
The third substantive part of Article 18 relatesto social values and states: Marketingcommunication should not include any directappeal to children and young people nor shouldpersuade their parents or other adults to buy
products for them. This is reinforced in the2008 Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading
Regulations in the UK and is legally enforceable.The BCAP and CAP codes of practice adequatelycover this11.
However, Article 18 does not cover messages
on company websites which exhort children topersuade others to make purchases for them.Thus, the common practice of wishlists onchildrens websites cannot be regulated despite
being quite clearly direct appeals to children to getothers to make purchases on their behalf. Thesewishlists encourage children to send emails tofamily and adult friends with links to e-commerceareas on the website where the companyproducts can be bought. This practice is, in effect,illegal and it is to be hoped that specic provision
will be made for this activity to come within theremit of the CAPs extended code of practice,dependent on future test cases.
9 CAP code of practice section 5.110 Nairn, A. and Fine, C. (2008), Whos messing with my
mind? The implications of dual-process models for theethics of advertising to children, International Journal ofAdvertising, Vol.27, No. 3 p.447470
11 BCAP code of practice sections 5.9, 5.10 and 5.14; CAPcode of practice sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7
8/22/2019 A Tangled Web for Web: Marketing to Children
17/20
17Marketing to children
Article 18 also states marketing should notsuggest that a child will have any form ofsuperiority by owning the product being marketed.CAP and BCAP codes of practice reect this12,but they do not cover the relatively new practiceof brand ambassadors whereby children arerecruited to demonstrate a product to friends.The effects of this type of marketing on friendshipgroups have not been researched. It is, however,
quite conceivable that the status of brandambassador confers a social superiority on thechosen children which others will want to emulate.
Data protection and privacy
As noted in Chapter 3, the EU Data ProtectionDirective (95/46/EC) does not make specicprovision for children. This is a serious omission.
The implication of Article 19 of the ICC codeis that parents should act as arbiters of theirchildrens privacy rights (see Annex 4). TheArticle puts the onus on companies to try toinvolve parents and obtain their consent beforeinformation is collected about children.
In the UK, these guidelines are implemented inthe DMAs code of practice where they apply to allonline direct marketing communication to children
under 18 (see paragraphs 19.2519.34 in Annex5). These provisions make it clear that personaldata must not be collected from children underthe age of 16 without rst obtaining a parent orguardians veriable and explicit consent, andsimilar consent must be obtained before publiclyposting or disclosing such information.
However, there are a number of seriouschallenges in applying these rules. Obtainingexplicit and veriable parental consent is difcult.
Some websites simply ask children to tick a boxto say they have obtained consent. Researchshows that some children will tick the box withouthaving consulted their parents. Other websitesask for a parents email address so the companycan contact them directly. Research showsthat some children simply create a new emailaddress that allegedly belongs to their parents.Moreover, the DMAs code of practice states thatother peoples personal information must not becollected from children, so collecting a parents
e-mail from a child contravenes this section13.
Verifying the age of a child on the internet is
almost impossible without requiring some sort ofofcial ID card, bank card or passport number documents which not all children possess.And given that neither privacy laws nor the ICCstipulate the age of a child, the position whena child accesses a website which has its legalheadquarters in another country, is far from clear.There are also disparities between the privacy
regulations relating to a child visiting the websitebelonging to a company with headquarters inanother country.
13 DMA code of practice section 19.33
12 CAP code of practice section 5.2; BCAP code of practicesection 5.6
8/22/2019 A Tangled Web for Web: Marketing to Children
18/20
18 Consumer Focus
We have seen that the CAPs code of practice is
also derived from the ICC Consolidated Code.However, provision in the CAPs revised codeof practice is at odds with the DMAs. Section10.15 of the CAPs code states that marketersmust not collect personal information fromchildren under 12 without rst obtaining parentalpermission, while Section 10.16 says marketersmust not knowingly collect personal informationabout other people from children under 16. It isunknown why the rst age limit has been revised
down to 12 (from the DMAs limit of 16) and why
the second has been revised down to 16 (fromthe DMAs limit of 18).
There is a widely held belief in the marketingand advertising industries that the InformationCommissioner has said children over the age of12 are capable of giving their consent for theirpersonal information to be collected and used.However, this belief is not recorded in writing anddoes not form part of any of the ICCs codes of
practice. This belief is also, clearly, contrary to theDMAs code of practice.
Parental involvement
Chapter D7 of the ICC Consolidated Code relatesto advertising and marketing to children usingelectronic media and the telephone (see Annex6). It requires companies to encourage parentsto supervise their childrens internet activities
and not to disclose personal information abouta child without parental consent. The provision
is very vague and so far none of the UK codesof practice have more specic guidelines forelectronic media marketing aimed at children.We have already seen how hard it is to put inplace a foolproof mechanism for verifying parentsidentities. It is also hard to see how parents canbe encouraged to supervise their children whenthey are unlikely to know what websites theirchildren visit. An increasing number of children
have internet access in their bedrooms whereparents cannot adequately supervise activities.
None of the codes of practice havecomprehensively tackled the issue of behavioural
targeting of children. This is the practice of placingcookies on childrens computers so that datacan be collected about which sites childrenvisit, how long they stay there, what topics theydiscuss, what they buy etc so that targeted
advertising can be directed to their computer.The voluntary IAB best practice guidelines simplystate advertisers should not create segments ofdata for under 13-year-olds for the purpose oftargeting. However, this does not give childrenor parents any particular information about, or
control over, data that is passively collected.Again, this may be something the marketingindustry can tackle with government.
8/22/2019 A Tangled Web for Web: Marketing to Children
19/20
19Marketing to children
The regulations governing marketing to children arecomplex. A number of regulatory problems havearisen over recent years with the increased use ofintegrated marketing communications and digitaltechnology in a rapidly growing childrens market.
Regulatory and self-regulatory bodies have not keptapace with developments in integrated marketingpractices, particularly those relating to new digitalmarketing techniques. These techniques are notbeing reected in codes of practice.
The regulatory model is insufcient for monitoringintegrated marketing campaigns. With over 20
different statutory and self-regulatory codes ofpractice (and many of these issued by a raft ofbodies representing their members interest),
there is a lack of transparency in how the variousbodies relate to each other. Most of thesecodes of practice relate to a discrete marketingtechnique, for example, marketing, advertisingand direct mail. There is not an overall monitoringmechanism for regulating integrated marketingcampaigns. Consequently, it is both difcult for acompany to know if an entire campaign abides by
all relevant regulations and codes of practice, andfor a consumer to know which body to complain
to if they are unhappy.
One of the most fundamental problems with thecurrent model is the different ages used to denea child. Across the many codes of practice these
vary from 12 to 18, and some do not specify anage at all. There is no provision in current codesof practice for labelling digital advertising. Childrenare still exposed to inappropriate advertisingonline. The practice of enabling children to createwishlists on certain websites contravenesthe ICC Consolidated Code about pesterpower. The recruitment of children as brandambassadors where they promote products totheir friends also contravenes the ICC code, yetbrand ambassadors are not covered in any codes
of practice.
Companies have a duty to obtain parental
consent before collecting data about children.This duty is difcult for companies to abideby over the internet, and the issue is furthercomplicated when a company has its websitein a country outside of the UK. There are alsodifferences in codes of practice between the agesat which companies can collect personal data.
Conclusions
8/22/2019 A Tangled Web for Web: Marketing to Children
20/20
ISBN: 978 1 907125 38 6
Published: October 2010
If you have any questions or would like further information about our research,please contact Jillian Pitt, by telephone on 020 7799 7991 or
For regular updates from Consumer Focus, sign up to our monthly enewsletter
by emailing [email protected]
If you require this publication in Braille,
large print or on audio CD please contact us.
Deaf, hard of hearing or speech impaired consumers
can contact Consumer Focus via Text Relay:
From a textphone, call 18001 020 7799 7900
From a telephone, call 18002 020 7799 7900
Acknowledgement
Thanks to Dr Agnes Nairn for her support and comments
Consumer Focus
Artillery House
Artillery Row
London SW1P 1RT
t: 020 7799 7900
f: 020 7799 7901
www.consumerfocus.org.uk
Media team: 020 7799 8004/8005/8006