Responsible food advertisingResponsible food advertising

Suzanne EdmondSuzanne EdmondPublic Affairs ManagerPublic Affairs Manager

AgendaAgenda

• The media hype

• The facts of the debate

• Responsible advertisingResponsible advertising

• New media - new rules.New media - new rules.

• What next?What next?

The media hypeThe media hype

• Campaigners call for a complete banCampaigners call for a complete ban

• A campaign of principle or politics?A campaign of principle or politics?

• A sense of sensibility?A sense of sensibility?

Campaigners call for a complete banCampaigners call for a complete ban

Guardian 26 August 2006

Telegraph 16 June 2006

Financial Times 22 June 2006

A campaign of principle or politics?A campaign of principle or politics?

Public lukewarm on junk food ban, says watchdogMonday October 9, 2006

A sense of sensibility?A sense of sensibility?

The facts of the debateThe facts of the debate

• The backgroundThe background• The researchThe research• The public policy objectivesThe public policy objectives• What the consumer wants?What the consumer wants?

To be reviewed in 2007 “in relation to the balance of food and drink advertising and promotion to children and children’s food preferences to assess their impact”.

“If by 2007, they have failed to produce change in the nature and balance of food promotion, we will take action through existing powers or new legislation to implement a clearly defined framework for regulating the promotion of food to children”.

The backgroundThe background

The researchThe research

Hastings et al (2003) concluded that it was impossible to provide incontrovertible proof that food promotion had an effect on children.

Using his ‘strongest study’, he found that TV advertising had only a 2% impact on food choice.

There are a number of influencing factors on preference and consumption: biological, behavioural, family, friends and schools.

Increasing sedentary lifestyles are contributing to weight problem.

TV advertising has a modest, direct effect on children.

Children’s food preferences, consumption and behaviour are multi-determined.

The effects of bans on food advertising in other countries, in terms obesity, have been unclear and contested.

Parents believe that rules on advertising of HFSS should be changed, but there was little support for

an outright ban.

The public policy objectivesThe public policy objectives

Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (2003):

Ban would not be proportionate;

Restrictions need to be rooted in evidence;

Must fully reflect balance between welfare benefit and economic impact.

Choosing Health White Paper (2004)

Tighten rules on broadcast advertising of food and drink;

Secure effective implementation;

Change nature and balance of food promotion.

Ofcom (March 2006):

Reduce significantly the exposure of younger children of HFSS advertising;

Appropriate revisions to the content standards;

Avoid disproportionate impacts on broadcaster revenues;

Avoid intrusive regulation of advertising in adult airtime;

Appropriate and sufficiently timely (Gov. review 2007).

Minister for Public Health (2006)

My concerns are focused on protecting primary school aged children

What the consumer wantsWhat the consumer wants

TV Advertising:

Food choices personal responsibility

Effective but only one influence

Can be force for good: information & education

Participants wanted:

A ‘middle way’ (option 1 plus)

To see real difference in advertising (content)

Perceptible difference in amount of advertising (volume)

Not to affect ‘healthy’ advertising

No advertising to under 5’s

Rejected pre-9pm watershed ban:

Would impact adult viewing too much

Want more ‘moderate’ approach

Support by adults diminished further on discussion

Children wanted ‘interesting’ ads for treats not just ‘boring’ adult ads i.e. insurance

Public opinion research (2006)

Responsible advertising: What is the industry doing?Responsible advertising: What is the industry doing?

• TV viewing behaviour TV viewing behaviour

• The industry’s manifestoThe industry’s manifesto

• Programming - children’s and lifestyleProgramming - children’s and lifestyle

• Over 15 hours viewing per week (down from over 17 hours).

• Around one third of viewing to BBC channels.

• Although 70% of children’s viewing is outside dedicated children’s programmes:

– less than half of children’s viewing is in adult commercial airtime;

– over half of young children’s viewing of food ads in children’s airtime;

• Vast majority of food advertising seeking to reach adults:

– £600 million in food advertising across TV (coffee, tea, pasta sauce, mineral water).

• Children will see some food advertising targeting adults:

– but generally in presence of adult;

– and all such advertising is subject to tight content restrictions.

TV viewing behaviourTV viewing behaviour

The industry’s 7 point planThe industry’s 7 point plan

• More helpful labelling: collective voluntary actions (GDA’s)

• Product reformulation: increased choice of reduced salt, sugar and fat options.

• Advertising to children: willing to investigate further self-regulation and voluntary restraint.

• Portion sizes: new approaches to sizes of individual portions e.g. ‘kingsize’.

• Vending: commitment to wider choice.

• Industry as exemplar: healthy workplace schemes on diet and lifestyle.

• Further commitment: Government but joint multi-media consumer information programme.

A comprehensive approach which:

• builds on the voluntary self restraint of advertisers (no advertisements in or around pre-school programmes);

• proposes probably the toughest set of code content restrictions in the world, endorsed by the independent AAC of BCAP;

• to be administered by the best funded (via levy) independent adjudicatory body in the world, the independent ASA;

• blended with volume/scheduling restrictions which adapt Ofcom’s options 2 and 3 to meet best the needs of generalist and dedicated children's channels;

• delivers a 50% reduction of commercial impacts to 4-9 years olds (Government target of primary school children) versus base year of 2003 (when Government set target).

Package 4Package 4

Programming - children’s and lifestyleProgramming - children’s and lifestyle

MEDIA SMART

New media - new rulesNew media - new rules

• New advertising standardsNew advertising standards

• Content proposals

• Reducing children’s exposure to advertising

• What next: reviewing non-broadcast advertisingWhat next: reviewing non-broadcast advertising

New advertising standardsNew advertising standards

• Recognises the vulnerability of younger children to commercial pressure.

• Aims to reduce the level of emotional engagement of food and soft drink advertisements targeted directly at younger children.

• Would result in substantial change in the nature of food and soft drink advertising.

• Would be probably the toughest set of code restrictions in the world.

Celebrities and licensed characters

• Not to be used in any advertisements targeted directly at children under 10.

Example provided by Kellogg’s

Promotional offers including collectables and giveaways

Example provided by Nestle UK

• Not to be used in any advertisements targeted directly at children under 10.

• Not to encourage consumption of product only to obtain a promotional offer.

• Diet and lifestyle:

– Ads must avoid anything to encourage an unhealthy lifestyle;

– Ads must not condone or encourage excessive consumption;

– Ads must not advise or ask children to pester parents.

• Accuracy in food advertising:

– claims must be supported by sound scientific evidence;

– ambiguous wording that could be understood as a nutritional claim must

be avoided.

What else do the content proposals deliver?What else do the content proposals deliver?

Source - Impacts: Source: Nielsen Media Research Monitor. Core Category (food products, chain restaurants, soft drinks)

Package 4 would produce a 48% reduction of TV impacts vs 2003 (children 4-9)

*est. Based on reduction of -48%, using the base year of 2003 (Cassidy Media Partnership)

0.0

2,000,000.0

4,000,000.0

6,000,000.0

8,000,000.0

10,000,000.0

12,000,000.0

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Package 4*

Reducing children’s exposure to advertisingReducing children’s exposure to advertising

What next: reviewing non-broadcast advertisingWhat next: reviewing non-broadcast advertising            

• CAP process. – Timetable for transposing proposed content restrictions.

– Rules need to gain industry acceptance in self-regulatory system.

– Need to involve non-broadcast media in process.

• Food & Drink Advertising and Promotion Forum– Working groups.

– Next steps.

• Monitoring and success criteria - broadcast & non-broadcast.– Thompson Intermedia.

ConclusionsConclusions

 

• The industry has been engaged in the process from the outset and committed to playing its part.

• Advertising is only one small part of the problem.

• Advertising restrictions, whilst important, will not provide a ‘quick fix’ to the health problems facing this country.

• Draconian restrictions will have a significant and detrimental impact to broadcasting without achieving any real positive effect on obesity.

• We need positive messages encouraging children to lead healthy and more active lifestyles.

A final thought...

Bonjour Paris L’ école