The normative power of food promotions: Australian children’sattachments to unhealthy food brands

Bridget Kelly1,*, Becky Freeman2, Lesley King2, Kathy Chapman3, Louise A Baur2,4

and Tim Gill21Early Start Research Institute, School of Health & Society, University of Wollongong, Northfields Avenue,Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia: 2Prevention Research Collaboration, Sydney School of Public Health, Universityof Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia: 3Cancer Council NSW, Woolloomooloo, NSW, Australia: 4The Children’sHospital at Westmead Clinical School, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Submitted 11 October 2015: Final revision received 27 April 2016: Accepted 9 May 2016: First published online 13 June 2016

AbstractObjective: The formation of food brand associations and attachment isfundamental to brand preferences, which influence purchases and consumption.Food promotions operate through a cascade of links, from brand recognition, toaffect, and on to consumption. Frequent exposures to product promotions mayestablish social norms for products, reinforcing brand affect. These pathwayssignify potential mechanisms for how children’s exposure to unhealthy foodpromotions can contribute to poor diets. The present study explored children’sbrand associations and attachments for major food brands.Design: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted. Fourteen study brandswere used, with each child viewing a set of seven logos. The questionnaire assessedperceptions of food brands and perceptions of users of brands, using semanticdifferential scales, and perceived brand ‘personalities’, using Likert scales.Setting: New South Wales, Australia, October–November 2014.Subjects: Children aged 10–16 years (n 417).Results: Children demonstrated strong positive affect to certain brands, perceivingsome unhealthy food brands to have positive attributes, desirable user traits andalignment to their own personality. Brand personality traits of ‘smart’ and ‘sporty’were viewed as indicators of healthiness. Brands with these traits were rankedlower for popularity.Conclusions: Children’s brand associations and attachments indicate the potentialnormative social influences of promotions. While children are aware of brandhealthiness as an attribute, this competes with other brand associations,highlighting the challenge of health/nutrition messaging to counter unhealthyfood marketing. Restricting children’s exposure to unhealthy food marketing andthe persuasive nature of marketing is an important part of efforts to improvechildren’s diet-related health.

KeywordsFood

BeverageChildBrand

MarketingAdvertisingPromotion

Children’s exposure to unhealthy food and beveragepromotions is increasingly recognised by public healthprofessionals(1) and leading global health organisations(2)

as a probable contributor to poor diets, weight gain and,consequently, non-communicable diet-related diseases.Globally, monitoring data have identified that children areexposed to high levels of food promotions across allmedia platforms and a range of settings, and that pro-moted products are predominantly high in added fat,sugar and/or sodium (referred to as ‘unhealthy’)(3). Thesedata have also identified that food and advertising industrycodes of practice for responsible marketing to children

have been largely ineffective in reducing children’sexposures to such promotions(4). Yet, few governmentshave introduced regulations to limit children’s exposure topromotions for unhealthy foods, citing a lack ofevidence linking marketing exposure to diet and weightoutcomes(5,6).

Marketing is known to operate through a cascadepathway from brand recognition, to affect, and on tobehaviour(7), and there is considerable evidence to sup-port this sequenced set of effects(8). The development of‘brand equity’ is a major driver that propels people alongthis pathway that leads ultimately to the consumption of

Public Health Nutrition: 19(16), 2940–2948 doi:10.1017/S1368980016001452

*Corresponding author: Email bkelly@uow.edu.au © The Authors 2016

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1017/S1368980016001452&domain=pdf

products. Brand equity represents the value that is addedto a product as a consequence of being linked to the brand(a name or a symbol)(9) and comes about as a result ofbrand knowledge, perceptions and attachments(10). Brandawareness must, clearly, precede brand perceptions andattachments, and this awareness is linked to brandexposures(10). The frequency of exposure, as well as thepersuasive power of promotions (content and creativestrategies), creates the potential for brand equity (positiveperceptions and strong attachments)(2). From a publicpolicy perspective, limiting children’s exposure to brandmessages for unhealthy foods and beverages, and thepersuasive power of these promotions, could stifle thecascade of effects of marketing by suppressing brandawareness, perceptions and attachment and thus limitingbrand equity.

Children’s views about major food brands provide anindicator of relative brand equity and can be used as apredictor of intention to consume such products. Researchwith adults(11) and children(12) has shown that strong,positive brand perceptions predict brand choice andpurchase behaviours. Brand perceptions can includebeliefs about brand attributes and benefits, and percep-tions about users of the brand. Brand attachment, or theextent that a person self-identifies with a brand, is an evenstronger predictor of actual consumption behaviour(11).Brand attachment involves a cognitive and emotionalconnection between a person and the brand, and is shownthrough thoughts and feelings about the brand’s relation-ship to self(11). Marketing campaigns largely seek to buildpositive images of, and relationships with, brands.Consequently, research that uses brand-as-a-personmetaphors to assess perceptions of brand personalitiescan provide insights regarding brand perceptions andattachment and potential purchase and consumptionbehaviours(13). Brand perceptions may be particularlyimportant for older children in their formation of brandpreferences. Piaget’s theory of cognitive developmentposits that older children consider multiple attributeswhen forming preferences, while younger children mayconsider simple attributes, such as the visual aspects ofa brand, in making choices(14). However, as age increasesfrom about 11 years, children’s scepticism towardsadvertising also increases(15).

The present study aimed to explore Australianchildren’s brand perceptions and attachments (together,described as ‘brand affect’) for major food and beveragebrands. As such, it contributes evidence of brand equity,and thus can form an indicator of the extent and impact ofprior brand exposures and may predict food purchase andconsumption behaviours. Brand affect, which representsa person’s favourable or unfavourable evaluation of abrand(16), was compared with reported levels of com-mercial television viewing (as a proxy for televisionadvertising exposure) and social media engagement withfood brands to identify affect–exposure relationships. We

hypothesised that children who were exposed to a greateramount of television adverting and who had engaged withfood brands on social media would have more positiveaffect towards food brands. We also predicted thatyounger children would be less sceptical of marketing andbranding and would rate brands more favourably. Weexpected that unhealthy brands would be seen to be morefavourable and that users of these brands were perceivedas more popular due to the ubiquity of commercialmessages about these types of brands.

Methods

SamplingA cross-sectional online survey was conducted with10–16-year-old children living in New South Wales,Australia, during October–November 2014. The targetsample was 400 children, which allowed for responsecomparisons across demographic groups. This sample wasdeemed to provide sufficient cell sizes for calculatingdifferences between age (two groups), sex (two groups)and socio-economic status (SES; three groups) for theirresponses to question scales (commonly five categories).Approximately 7600 parents who were panel members of aconsumer research panel (from McNair Ingenuity) werecontacted by email, asked to complete a short screenersurvey to assess eligibility and then asked to invite theirchild to participate in the survey. A total of 582 parentssuccessfully completed the screener process (see onlinesupplementary material, Supplemental Figure 1). Samplequotas were established for child age (approximately equalnumbers for all year groups), sex (approximately equalnumbers of boys and girls) and based on postcodeof residence using the Australian Bureau of StatisticsSocio-Economic Indexes for Areas (spread of low, mediumand high SES)(17). Where there was more than one eligiblechild in a household, preference was given to the oldestchild as it was anticipated that older adolescents would bemore difficult to recruit. Panel members had previouslyagreed to be contacted by this company for surveypurposes. The emailed link to the online survey contained aunique identifier to monitor participation and facilitatefollow-up by email, as required. Up to two reminder emailswere sent. Participants were given a $AU 10 gift voucher forparticipating. The study was approved by the University ofSydney Human Research Ethics Committee.

MeasuresA purpose-designed questionnaire was developedincluding measures of: (i) sociodemographic character-istics (sex, age, residential postcode); (ii) perceptions offood brands on 5-point semantic differential scales of ‘verycool’ to ‘very uncool’, ‘very exciting’ to ‘very unexciting’,and ‘very fun’ to ‘very boring’; (iii) perceptions of users offood brands, using 5-point semantic differential scales of

Children’s attachments to food brands 2941

‘very sophisticated’ to ‘very unsophisticated’, ‘verypopular’ to ‘very unpopular’, and ‘very sporty’ to ‘veryunfit’; and (iv) perceptions of food brand ‘personalities’,using 5-point Likert sales to respond to eight statementsabout the brand (refer to Table 2). For this latter measureof brand personalities, children were asked to imagine thateach brand was a person, such as a new student at theirschool. This measure was based on an earlier study fromCanada, which assessed adolescents’ attitudes towards acigarette brand’s personality and their identification withthe brand before and after Formula 1 (motor sport)sponsorship(18). The current questionnaire applied thisconcept of self-identification with brands and made thismore relevant to younger children by personifying brandsas a person at their school. Media use, including theirengagement with food brands on social media (particu-larly Facebook; i.e. if they had ever ‘liked’ food and drinkbrands) was also asked (yes/no). Volume of commercialand non-commercial television watched was also reportedin 15min increments for weekdays and weekend days andadded to give total volume of television viewing per week.Food brand perception questions were designed by theauthors, based on earlier surveys with children on theirperceptions of food brands(19,20) and self-attachment totobacco brands(18). Face validity of the questionnaire wasachieved through the review of the tool by all members ofthe research team and by the market research companyanalysists, who are experienced in designing and under-taking social and market research. The questionnaire wasfirst pilot-tested with eight children aged 10–16 years.Piloting revealed that the duration of the questionnairewas too long. The final questionnaire was revised to

minimise repetition, clarify wording and delete questionsthat were perceived to be less important.

ProcedureTo reduce respondent burden, the fourteen study brands(see Table 1) were split into two groups and each childwas randomly allocated to view one of these groups, witheach child viewing seven brands. Brands were selectedto include a range of more popular and less popular,‘healthier’ and unhealthy, and child-oriented and notchild-oriented brands. Children were shown food/drinkbrand logos on-screen and asked to indicate their attitudesto brands, brand users and brand personalities.

AnalysesData were entered in the statistical software package IBMSPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 19.0. Mean ratings ofperceptions of food brands were compared for unhealthybrands and ‘healthier’ brands using paired t tests. Theproportions of children with favourable perceptions offood brands (cool, exciting, fun) by child age group(10–12 years v. 13–16 years) and volume of commercialtelevision viewing (higher v. lower viewers based onmedian split) were compared using χ 2 tests. Adjustment ofP values was performed using the Bonferroni method.Mean ratings of perceptions of users of food brands werecompared for unhealthy brands and ‘healthier’ brands andby age group and television viewing group (higherv. lower). The proportions of children agreeing withstatements about food brand ‘personalities’ were com-pared descriptively across brands. Agreement with thestatement ‘I would try to make friends with them’ was

Table 1 Rating of brands on ‘cool’, ‘exciting’ and ‘fun’ scales, and mean overall brand rating, in an online survey by children aged 10–16years (n 417), New South Wales, Australia, October–November 2014

‘Very cool’ or‘A little cool’

‘Very exciting’ or‘A little exciting’

‘Very fun’ or‘A little fun’

Overallbrand rating§

Brand‡ Food type n % n % n % Mean SD

Cadbury (n 208) Chocolate 190* 91 180 87 183 88 1·5 0·68Pringles (n 208) Crisps 155 75 169 81 146 70 2·1 1·11Freddo Frog (n 208) Chocolate 153 74 134 64 159 76 2·0 0·94Red Rock Deli (n 208) Crisps 146 70 129 62 112 54 2·3 0·97Coca-Cola (n 209) Sugary drink 145† 69 131 63 144 69 2·2 1·17Mars (n 208) Chocolate 142 68 125 60 128 62 2·2 0·96McDonald’s (n 208) Fast food 124*** 60 127** 61 133*** 64 2·3 1·19Domino’s Pizza (n 209) Fast food 122 58 117 56 116 56 2·4 1·08KFC (n 209) Fast food 114* 55 107 51 115 55 2·6 1·25Mount Franklin (n 209)|| Water 111 53 69 33 59 28 3·0 1·06Goulburn Valley (n 209)|| Juice 69 33 53* 25 43 21 3·3 1·03Red Bull (n 209) Sugary drink 61 29 59 28 65 31 3·5 1·39Sumo Salad (n 209)|| Salad bar 55** 26 52 25 52 25 3·4 1·19Red Rooster (n 208) Fast food 50* 24 61* 29 56 27 3·3 1·10Unhealthy brands 2·4 0·66Relatively healthy brands 3·2 0·99

Significant difference in ratings by age group (10–12 years v. 13–16 years): *P< 0·05, **P< 0·01, ***P< 0·001; and by volume of commercial television viewingper week (higher v. lower viewers based on median split): †P< 0·05.‡Numbers in parentheses are the number of children who viewed each brand.§Mean overall brand rating calculated as sum of cool, exciting, fun scales (1= very positive, 5= very negative), dived by three to give a value out of 5.||Brands that represent relatively healthier products.

2942 B Kelly et al.

summed across all seven brands viewed by each child,with a score of 1 point for each brand with ‘agree’ or‘strongly agree’. Similar summed scores for each childwere derived for the statements ‘Other children would tryto make friends with them’ and ‘This person would have asimilar personality to me’. Summed scores were comparedto reported engagement with food brands on Facebook(yes/no) and volume of commercial television watched(higher v. lower) using independent-samples t tests.Findings were considered significant at the α= 0·05 level.

Results

Sample characteristicsOverall, 417 children completed the survey (53% girls),with a mean age of 13 (SD 1·9) years. A spread of socio-economic backgrounds was achieved (28% low SES, 44%medium SES, 28% high SES). An equal number of children(n 208–209) were allocated to view each brand grouping,with similar child age and sex distributions within thesegroupings.

Food and drink brand affect

Perceptions of food brandsOf the eleven brands that were classified as representingunhealthy products (fast food, chocolate, crisps, sugarydrinks), the mean rating across all three semantic differ-ential scales of cool–uncool, fun–boring and exciting–unexciting was 2·4, while for ‘healthier’ brands (salad bar,water, juice) the mean rating was 3·2 (t376= − 14·20,P< 0·001), with 1 indicating very positive perceptionsand 5 indicating very negative perceptions (Table 1). Thisindicates that children perceived unhealthy brands to be ‘alittle positive’ (cool, exciting, fun) but healthy brands ‘in-between’ positive and negative scales. Cadbury was ratedas most favourable on each of the semantic differentialscales (Table 1). Mean overall rating of brands was cal-culated as the sum of ratings on cool, exciting and funscales, divided by three. The mean rating for Cadbury was1·5, indicating that average ratings were between ‘very’and ‘a little’ positive (cool, exciting, fun). Alternatively,brands with an average rating of more than 3·0 werenegatively perceived, including Goulburn Valley juice,Red Bull, Sumo Salad and Red Rooster. Compared witholder children (13–16 years), a greater proportion ofyounger children (10–12 years) rated McDonald’s as ‘very’or ‘a little’ cool (51% v. 24%, χ21 = 15·22, P= 0·001), ‘very’or ‘a little’ exciting (74% v. 53 %, χ21 = 9·00, P= 0·003) and‘very’ or ‘a little’ fun (77% v. 55%, χ21 = 10·38, P= 0·001).Greater numbers of younger children also perceivedCadbury, KFC and Red Rooster to be ‘cool’, and RedRooster to also be ‘exciting’. A greater proportion of olderchildren rated Sumo Salad as cool (33% v. 16%, χ21 = 7·62,P= 0·006). Based on median split, those who watched

more commercial television per week were significantlymore likely to perceive Coca-Cola as ‘very’ or ‘a little’ cool(75% v. 61%, χ21 = 5·00, P= 0·03). Perceptions of otherbrands were not associated with television viewingvolume.

Perceptions of users of food brandsRelating to children’s perceptions of users of brands, theeleven unhealthy brands were rated as less sophisticated(mean 2·9 (SD 0·83) on the semantic differential scale ofsophisticated–unsophisticated) compared with the three‘healthier’ brands (2·4 (SD 1·05)) and less sporty (3·6 (SD0·80) v. 1·9 (SD 0·65) on the semantic differential scale ofsporty–unfit), with a rating of 1 indicating strong positiveperceptions and 5 indicating strong negative perceptions.However, the unhealthy brands were rated as more pop-ular than the three ‘healthier’ brands (1·7 (SD 0·78) v. 2·8(SD 0·97) on the semantic differential scale of popular–unpopular). Figure 1(a)–(c) shows mean ratings of brandusers, separated into beverages, fast food and snacks. Themean rating on scales of ‘sophisticated’, ‘popular’ and‘sporty’ for users of Coca-Cola were 1·3, 2·5 and 3·2,respectively. That is, the average ratings were ‘verypopular’; mid-way between ‘a little sophisticated’ and‘in-between sophisticated and unsophisticated’; and ‘in-between sporty and unfit’. For fast food, there was aninverse relationship between ratings of ‘sporty’ and ‘pop-ular’. That is, users of Sumo Salad were rated as ‘sporty’and also as ‘unpopular’. All snacks followed a similarpattern in responses: they were rated as ‘popular’, ‘a littlesophisticated’ and ‘in-between sporty and unfit’. Therewas no difference in mean ratings by volume of com-mercial television watched per week (by median split).Younger children were significantly more likely to rateusers of products as more sophisticated than olderchildren, including for McDonald’s (mean 3·0 v. 3·5), KFC(3·1 v. 3·6), Domino’s Pizza (3·0 v. 3·3) and Cadbury (2·0 v.2·3). Users of McDonald’s, Mars and Cadbury were alsorated as more popular by younger children, while users ofKFC were perceived to be more ‘sporty’ (all P< 0·05).Older children perceived Red Rock Deli crisps to be moresophisticated than younger children (mean 1·2 v. 2·4).

Perceptions of food brand ‘personalities’Children were then asked to imagine that each brand wasa person, such as a new student at their school, and toindicate their agreement with statements on a Likert scale.If Coca-Cola was a person, the greatest proportion ofchildren agreed they would be popular (74%) and out-going (68%), compared with other brands (Table 2). Mostchildren agreed that other children would try to makefriends with Cadbury (77%) and Coca-Cola (72%),although only 53% of children agreed that they would tryto make friends with Coca-Cola. Overall, children’s per-ceptions of Cadbury as a person were most positive; forthis brand, the greatest proportion of children agreed that

Children’s attachments to food brands 2943

they would try to make friends with them and that theperson would have a similar personality to them. Morechildren perceived that their parents would like the per-sonified brand when this was a ‘healthier’ product (MountFranklin water, Goulburn Valley juice, Sumo Salad) andalso thought that these personified brands would be smartand good at sport. However, the three ‘healthier’ brandswere perceived to be in the bottom five brands in terms

of both popularity and whether other children wouldmake friends with them.

The number of brands that children reported that theywould make friends with (summation of the seven brandsviewed for the statement ‘I would try to make friends withthem’, with a score of 1 point for each brand with ‘agree’and ‘strongly agree’) was compared with their previousengagement with (‘liking’ of) food brands on the social

Sporty

Sophisticated

Popular

1Very

2A little

3In between

4A little

5Very

1Very

2A little

3In between

4A little

5Very

1Very

2A little

3In between

4A little

5Very

Unfit

Unsophisticated

Unpopular

Sporty

Sophisticated

Popular

Unfit

Unsophisticated

Unpopular

Sporty

Sophisticated

Popular

Unfit

Unsophisticated

Unpopular

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 1 Mean ratings on semantic differential scales (with 1 indicating strong positive perceptions and 5 indicating strong negativeperceptions) for (a) users of beverage brands ( , mean Coca-Cola; , mean Mount Franklin; , mean Goulburn Valley;

, mean Red Bull), (b) users of fast-food brands ( , mean McDonald’s; , mean Sumo Salad; , mean KFC; ,mean Red Rooster; , mean Dominos) and (c) users of snack brands ( , mean Mars; , mean Freddo Frog; , meanPringles; , mean Cadbury; , mean Red Rock Deli) in an online survey by children aged 10–16 years (n 417), New SouthWales, Australia, October–November 2014

2944 B Kelly et al.

media site Facebook (Table 3). Those children who hadliked food and beverage brands on Facebook agreed thatthey would try to make friends with significantly more ofthe food/drink brands if they were a new person at theirschool compared with those who had not liked brands onFacebook (mean 3·71 v. 3·21, t2= − 2·10, P= 0·04). Therewas no significant difference between children who hadengaged with food brands on Facebook and those whohad not when considering agreement that other childrenwould try to make friends with the personified brands(mean 4·29 v. 3·87, t2= − 1·73, P= 0·08). Summing thestatement ‘This person would have a similar personality tome’ to indicate brand connection to self, there was nodifference in this parameter by age group or volume ofcommercial television watched.

Discussion

The present study sought to explore children’s brandassociations and attachments for frequently promoted foodand beverages in Australia, as an indicator of brand equityand likely intention to purchase and consume these brands.Children demonstrated strong positive affect to certainbrands, perceiving some unhealthy food brands to havepositive attributes, desirable user traits and alignment totheir own personality. The eleven unhealthy brands weregenerally perceived more positively than the three ‘heal-thier’ brands. Unhealthy brands were rated as more cool,fun and exciting than ‘healthier’ brands; users of unhealthybrands were viewed as more popular; and it was perceivedthat other children would be more likely to make friendswith the personified unhealthier brands. Alternatively, usersof ‘healthier’ brands were seen to be more sophisticated andsporty, and personified ‘healthier’ brands would be likedmore by parents, be smart and be good at sport. Youngerchildren aged 10–12 years reported more favourable atti-tudes towards these food brands and users of the brands;however, there was no difference by age in agreementabout statements of brands as human personalities.

The volume of commercial television viewed by chil-dren was not associated with food brand affect. Whiletelevision viewing was used here as a proxy for exposureto unhealthy food promotions, children are known to beexposed to this marketing on most other media and set-tings where they gather(21). Children who engaged withfood brands on social media, identified here as ‘liking’food and beverage brands on Facebook, were significantlymore likely to report that they would make friends withbrands if they were a person at their school. This identifiesthat children want to, and do, make ‘friends’ with thesebrands and form brand–self attachments. Although theconcept of treating brands as a person is abstract, theinternal consistency of children’s responses, demonstratedby similar rankings of particular brands across attitude andattachment questions, suggests that children interpretedTa

ble

2Agree

men

twith

statem

ents

abou

tbran

d-as

-a-perso

nin

anon

linesu

rvey

bych

ildrenag

ed10

–16

years(n

417),New

Sou

thWales

,Aus

tralia,Octob

er–Nov

embe

r20

14

‘Stron

glyag

ree’

or‘agree

’

Drin

ksFa

stfood

Sna

cks

Coc

a-Cola

(n20

9)

Mou

ntFran

klin

(n20

9)

Gou

lburn

Valley

(n20

9)

Red

Bull

(n20

9)McD

onald’s

(n20

8)

Sum

oSalad

(n20

9)KFC

(n20

9)

Dom

ino’s

Pizza

(n20

9)

Red

Roo

ster

(n20

8)Mars

(n20

8)

Fred

doFrog

(n20

8)Prin

gles

(n20

8)

Red

Roc

kDeli

(n20

8)Cad

bury

(n20

8)

n%

n%

n%

n%

n%

n%

n%

n%

n%

n%

n%

n%

n%

n%

Thispe

rson

wou

ldbe

popu

lar

155

7410

751

5526

122

5812

359

7837

100

4811

354

6431

127

6113

163

128

6212

661

152

73Other

childrenwou

ldtryto

mak

efriend

swith

them

150

7210

751

6531

100

4814

067

8541

109

5211

756

7838

136

6514

670

132

6313

665

160

77

Thispe

rson

wou

ldbe

outgoing

142

6811

354

6431

129

6210

852

9847

8541

8239

5828

119

5713

263

122

5911

756

135

65Iwou

ldtryto

mak

efriend

swith

them

110

5313

967

9244

4923

9043

107

5166

3286

4156

2711

354

127

6112

460

129

6215

072

Thispe

rson

wou

ldha

veasimilar

person

ality

tome

7436

104

5066

3233

1663

3072

3440

1956

2734

1687

4284

4097

4794

4512

661

Thispe

rson

wou

ldbe

good

atsp

ort

6531

166

7911

455

9244

3115

158

7619

617

829

1457

2746

2246

2269

3357

27Thispe

rson

wou

ldbe

smart

6431

164

7813

062

2512

4120

147

7042

2029

1441

2056

2757

2789

4398

4786

41Mypa

rent/s

wou

ldlikethis

person

5828

176

8413

665

189

4019

146

7040

1941

2047

2370

3493

4584

4094

4512

460

Children’s attachments to food brands 2945

the questions as intended and the questions were appro-priate for this age group.

Children’s ratings of brand personalities indicate thepotential normative social influences of promotions. Themajority of children perceived that Coca-Cola as a personwould be popular and that other children would makefriends with them. However, only half of children reportedthat they themselves would make friends with Coca-Cola.It is logical to perceive that a brand is popular and liked byothers when it is frequently present and promoted.Cola-Cola marketing campaigns have also focused onfriendship, such as the ‘Share a Coke’ campaign thatencouraged consumers to buy a Coke bottle labelled withtheir own name and to share this with friends. Thesenormative influences may lead to a change in individuals’behaviour in line with perceived social norms. Socialnorms are known to influence consumption behaviours,as seen with alcohol consumption in adolescents(22) andtobacco smoking(23), and the Theory of Reasoned Actionidentifies normative beliefs as a major determinant ofbehavioural intent(24). Marketing may contribute to suchnormative beliefs through mere exposure, as well as thebrand messages portrayed in promotions. In anotherAustralian survey with children of primary school age(n 858) higher volume of television viewing was associatedwith more positive attitudes towards unhealthy foods,stronger perceptions that other children ate unhealthy foodmore often and a higher reported frequency of consump-tion of unhealthy food (all P< 0·001)(19).

The Cadbury brand was viewed as popular and, if thebrand was a person, would be someone that other chil-dren would like. In this case, children perceived that theirparents would also like Cadbury as a person and that theythemselves would try to make friends with them. As such,Cadbury is perceived by children to be a more acceptablebrand with which to be associated. This difference inperceptions of brands as appropriate for children is likelyto be at least partially influenced by the target of brands’advertising. Cadbury tends to target young children, usingcartoons and family images, and Cadbury’s own marketresearch identifies the brand as having ‘core values ofgoodness and quality’(25). Alternatively, Coca-Cola targetsadolescents and young adults through the use of tie-inswith music, sport and celebrities.

The brand personality traits of ‘smart’ and ‘sporty’ wereviewed by children as indicators of healthiness, withMount Franklin water, Sumo Salad and Goulburn Valleyjuice all rating higher than other brands for these domainswhen asked about the brand as a person. Children alsobelieved their parents would approve of these brands.However, these brands were generally ranked lower forpopularity, emphasising the normative beliefs that ‘heal-thier’ foods are less desirable despite children perceivingthat these may be more appropriate based on health andparental perceptions. This was also highlighted by theconsistent inverse association found between popularityof users of brands and sportiness, identified across allproduct categories. However, interestingly, younger chil-dren rated users of KFC as more sporty than older childrenand this link to sport may be a result of the highly visibleKFC sponsorship of elite cricket in Australia(26). With theexception of Red Bull, the five lowest rated brands on thescales of ‘cool’, ‘fun’ and ‘exciting’ were all ‘healthier’choices, including water, juice, a salad bar and RedRooster, which promotes itself as selling family meals. RedBull energy drink was an anomaly. Children recognisedthat parents would not approve of this brand-as-a-person,but they also rated it unfavourably in terms of perceivedbrand attributes and users of brands, with users seen to be‘unsophisticated’. This is promising, given that consump-tion of energy drinks is not recommended at any age, butparticularly for young people, given risks of caffeinetoxicity(27). However, intakes of these drinks tends toincrease at ages slightly older than the study sample(28).

Brands that are ostensibly seen to appeal to adults,including Red Rock Deli crisps, were also rated favourablyby children, with the brand seen to be cool and exciting.This has implications for food marketing policy recom-mendations, whereby any restrictions on marketing tochildren should take a broad definition and not only relateto food products or advertising that are designed to appealto children. In a framework for legislation for food mar-keting to children that was developed by the Obesity PolicyCoalition in Victoria, Australia, unhealthy food advertise-ments ‘directed to children’ (and therefore to be restricted)were defined as including advertisements intended or likelyto appeal to children, and any unhealthy food advertise-ment that is likely to be seen or heard by children(29).

Table 3 Association between engagement with food brands on Facebook and agreement about making ‘friends’ with brands in an onlinesurvey among children aged 10–16 years (n 417), New South Wales, Australia, October–November 2014

I would try to make friends with this (branded)person (sum of seven brands viewed)

Other children would try to make friends with this(branded) person (sum of seven brands viewed)

Mean SD Mean SD

Liked food brands on Facebook 3·71* 1·56 4·29 1·59Had not liked food brands on Facebook 3·21* 1·85 3·87 1·85

For each brand, a score of 1 point was given for the responses ‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’ to each statement.Mean values were significantly different: *P< 0·05.

2946 B Kelly et al.

Also of policy relevance is children’s positive affect towardscorporate branding, as distinct from product branding.Corporate brands, such as McDonald’s, also have identitiesthat are familiar to and are positively viewed by children.Where these corporations predominantly produce and sellunhealthy food and beverage choices, considerationshould be given to limiting children’s exposures to corpo-rate branding. In most existing food marketing regulationsinternationally, restrictions are based on the nutritionalprofile of food products(30), to the exclusion of anyrestrictions on corporate branding.

Other studies assessing children’s preferences for foodbrands have typically been experimental in nature andhave tested reported food choice following exposure tofood brand v. other advertisements(31,32) or branded v. plainpackaging(33). The latter study, which assessed children’s(n 63) preferences for identical foods served in plain orMcDonald’s packaging, highlights the power of brands andbrand equity. Children aged 3–5 years rated foods inMcDonald’s packaging significantly more favourably, evenfor foods not typically sold at McDonald’s(33). Brand namefamiliarity has also been shown in other studies to influencechildren’s food choices for both healthy and unhealthyfoods(34), indicating that brand familiarity can lead toperceptions of product quality and worth.

The current study is limited by its cross-sectional designand mode of survey delivery. Data were collected forchildren living in one state of Australia (the most populousstate) only and the extent that the findings apply morebroadly to children from other areas of Australia isunknown. However, food consumption patterns for dis-cretionary and core foods are similar across AustralianStates and Territories(35) and rates of television foodadvertising are also similar(36). The use of the consumerresearch panel for recruiting the sample may have intro-duced some response bias, given such panels are typicallyskewed towards older females. However, quota samplingensured that a spread of socio-economic backgrounds wasachieved and an approximately equal distribution ofchildren by age and sex. While the survey tool was testedfor face validity prior to use, no further psychometrictesting of the tool was undertaken to assess, for example,repeatability or construct validity. Further, a sample of 400children was selected to allow comparisons betweendemographic groups; however, power calculations werenot undertaken. Post hoc power calculations revealed thata sample of 1396 children would have been needed todetect a significant difference in the mean perception ofunhealthy food brands (mean of cool, fun and excitingscales) between higher and lower television viewers,based on median split (1·17 v. 1·23, noting that a higherscore indicates more unfavourable ratings). The studysample was underpowered to detect this difference.However, the relevance of the difference between groupsis questionable as both high and low television viewersrated unhealthy brands to be ‘very’ favourable. Future

studies could employ qualitative methodologies to morefully explore meanings of brands for children. Long-itudinal or experimental studies could elucidate causalrelationships between brand exposures and affect, andbetween this affect and consumption intentions andbehaviours. Investigations with younger children wouldalso be useful. Akin to tobacco brand recognition among3–6-year-olds(37), studies on ‘junk’ food brand awarenessand associations in pre-school children would provideevidence of the potential power of food marketing onyoung and vulnerable minds.

Conclusion

Exposures to unhealthy food brands inevitably lead tochildren’s familiarity with these brands and the develop-ment of strong affects towards, and beliefs about, thesebrands, generating brand equity. Australian children havefrequent and repeated exposures to persuasive andengaging food marketing spanning media platforms andsettings where they congregate, the majority of whichpromote unhealthy food choices. The ubiquity ofunhealthy food promotions exerts normative social influ-ence on children, whereby frequently promoted brands(both corporate brands and product brands) are seen to bepopular with others. While the findings show that childrenare aware of brand ‘healthiness’ as an attribute, thiscompetes with other more positive attributes in terms ofimage and association, emphasising the challenge ofhealth and nutrition messaging to counter this marketing.The ‘persuasive power’ of promotions is important indeveloping brand affect, including the formation of brandrelationships through branded messages and brand–userengagement on new media. Restricting both the extent ofchildren’s exposure to unhealthy food marketing and thepersuasive nature of product and brand marketing acrossall media platforms is an important part of efforts toimprove children’s nutrition and diet-related health.

Acknowledgements

Financial support: This study was funded by theAustralian National Preventive Health Agency and theAustralian Research Council (grant number LP0989387).The funder had no role in the design, analysis or writingof this article. Conflict of interest: None. Author’scontributions: B.K., B.F., L.K. and K.C. conceptualised thestudy. B.K. and B.F. drafted the survey questions and ledthe data collection. All authors contributed to the finalquestionnaire and the survey process. B.K. undertook theanalyses and drafted the manuscript. All authors read andapproved the final manuscript. Ethics of human subjectparticipation: The study was approved by the Universityof Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee.

Children’s attachments to food brands 2947

Supplementary material

To view supplementary material for this article, please visithttp://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1368980016001452

References

1. Roberto CA, Swinburn B, Hawkes C et al. (2015) Patchyprogress on obesity prevention: emerging examples, entren-ched barriers, and new thinking. Lancet 385, 2400–2409.

2. World Health Organization (2010) Set of Recommendationson the Marketing of Foods and Non-Alcoholic Beverages toChildren. Geneva: WHO.

3. Kelly B, King L, Baur L et al. (2013) Monitoring food andnon-alcoholic beverage promotions to children. Obes Rev14, 59–69.

4. Galbraith-Emami S & Lobstein T (2013) The impact ofinitiatives to limit the advertising of food and beverage pro-ducts to children: a systematic review. Obes Rev 14, 960–974.

5. Hawkes C & Lobstein T (2011) Regulating the commercialpromotion of food to children: a survey of actions world-wide. Int J Pediatr Obes 6, 83–94.

6. World Cancer Research Fund International (2015) NOUR-ISHING framework – Restrict food marketing. http://www.wcrf.org/int/policy/nourishing-framework/restrict-food-marketing (accessed August 2015).

7. Barry TE & Howard DJ (1990) A review & critique of thehierarchy of effects in advertising. Int J Advert 9, 121–135.

8. Kelly B, King L, Chapman K et al. (2015) A hierarchy ofunhealthy food promotion effects: identifying methodolo-gical approaches and knowledge gaps. Am J Public Health105, e86–e95.

9. Aaker DA (1991) Managing Brand Equity: Capitalising onthe Value of a Brand Name. New York: The Free Press.

10. Buil I, de Chernatony L & Martínez E (2013) Examining therole of advertising and sales promotions in brand equitycreation. J Bus Res 66, 115–122.

11. Park W, MacInnis JDP, Eisingerich A et al. (2010) Brandattachment and brand attitude strength: conceptual andempirical differentiation of two critical brand equity drivers.J Market 74, 1–17.

12. Dias M & Agante L (2011) Can advergames boost children’shealthier eating habits? A comparison between healthy andnon-healthy food. J Consum Behav 10, 152–160.

13. Caprara GV, Barbaranelli C & Guido G (2001) Brandpersonality: how to make the metaphor fit? J Econ Psychol22, 377–395.

14. Piaget J (editor) (1929) The Child’s Conception of the World.London: Trench, Trubner & Co Ltd.

15. Livingstone S & Helsper E (2004) Advertising foods tochildren: understanding promotion in the context of chil-dren’s daily lives. http://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/94835.pdf (accessed April 2015).

16. Keller KL (1993) Conceptualizing, measuring, and managingcustomer-based brand equity. J Market 57, 1–22.

17. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2011) Census of Populationand Housing: Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA).http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/2033.0.55.001(accessed March 2015).

18. Chebat JC & Daoud F (2003) Effects of F1 Grand Prixsponsorship by cigarette brands on adolescents’ cognitiveand behavioural responses. Int J Sports Market Sponsorsh5, 93–104.

19. Dixon HG, Scully ML, Wakefield MA et al. (2007) Theeffects of television advertisements for junk food versusnutritious food on children’s food attitudes and preferences.Soc Sci Med 65, 1311–1323.

20. Kelly B, Baur LA, Bauman AE et al. (2011) Food companysponsors are kind, generous and cool: (mis)conceptions ofjunior sports players. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 8, 95.

21. Cairns G, Angus K, Hastings G et al. (2013) Systematicreviews of the evidence on the nature, extent and effects offood marketing to children. A retrospective summary.Appetite 62, 209–215.

22. Rimal RN & Real K (2005) How behaviors are influenced byperceived norms. A test of the theory of normative socialbehavior. Commun Res 32, 389–414.

23. Chapman S & Freeman B (2008) Markers of the denorma-lisation of smoking and the tobacco industry. Tob Control17, 25–31.

24. Fishbein M & Ajzen I (editors) (2010) Predicting andChanging Behavior. The Reasoned Action Approach. NewYork: Psychology Press.

25. The Irish Times Business 2000 Fifth Edition (2015) Branddevelopment by identifying brand values. http://www.business2000.ie/pdf/pdf_5/cadbury_5th_ed.pdf (accessedAugust 2015).

26. Colagiuri S & Caterson ID (2008) KFC sponsorship ofcricket. Med J Aust 189, 415–416.

27. Gunja N & Brown JA (2012) Energy drinks: health risks andtoxicity. Med J Aust 196, 46–49.

28. Abbott RA, Macdonald D, Stubbs CO et al. (2008) HealthyKids Queensland Survey 2006 – Full Report. https://www.health.qld.gov.au/ph/documents/hpu/healthykidsqld2006.pdf (accessed July 2015).

29. MacKay S, Antonopoulos N, Martin J et al. (2011) Acomprehensive approach to protecting children fromunhealthy food advertising. http://www.opc.org.au/downloads/positionpapers/protecting-children-unhealthy-food-advertising-promotion.pdf (accessed November 2015).

30. Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity (2013) Pledgeson food marketing to children worldwide. http://www.yaleruddcenter.org/marketingpledges/ (accessed June 2013).

31. Boyland EJ, Harrold JA, Kirkham TC et al. (2011) Foodcommercials increase preference for energy-dense foods,particularly in children who watch more television. Pedia-trics 128, e93–e100.

32. Redondo I (2012) The effectiveness of casual advergames onadolescents’ brand attitudes. Eur J Market 46, 1671–1688.

33. Robinson TN, Borzekowski DG, Matheson DM et al. (2007)Effects of fast food branding on young children’s tastepreferences. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 161, 792–797.

34. Levin AM & Levin IP (2010) Packaging of healthy andunhealthy food products for children and parents: therelative influence of licensed characters and brand names.J Consum Behav 9, 393–402.

35. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2015) Australian HealthSurvey: Nutrition – State and Territory results, 2011–12.http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/4364.0.55.009~2011-12~Main%20Features~Key%20Findings~1 (accessed Februrary 2016).

36. Roberts M, Pettigrew S, Chapman K et al. (2013) Theadvertised diet: an examination of the extent and nature offood advertising on Australian television. Health Promot JAust 24, 137–142.

37. Fischer PM, Schwartz MP, Richards JW et al. (1991) Brandlogo recognition by children aged 3 to 6 years. MickeyMouse and Old Joe the Camel. JAMA 266, 3145–3148.

2948 B Kelly et al.

http://www.wcrf.org/int/policy/nourishing-framework/restrict-food-marketinghttp://www.wcrf.org/int/policy/nourishing-framework/restrict-food-marketinghttp://www.wcrf.org/int/policy/nourishing-framework/restrict-food-marketinghttp://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/94835.pdfhttp://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/94835.pdfhttp://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/2033.0.55.001http://www.business2000.ie/pdf/pdf_5/cadbury_5th_ed.pdfhttp://www.business2000.ie/pdf/pdf_5/cadbury_5th_ed.pdfhttps://www.health.qld.gov.au/ph/documents/hpu/healthykidsqld2006.pdfhttps://www.health.qld.gov.au/ph/documents/hpu/healthykidsqld2006.pdfhttps://www.health.qld.gov.au/ph/documents/hpu/healthykidsqld2006.pdfhttp://www.opc.org.au/downloads/positionpapers/protecting-children-unhealthy-food-advertising-promotion.pdfhttp://www.opc.org.au/downloads/positionpapers/protecting-children-unhealthy-food-advertising-promotion.pdfhttp://www.opc.org.au/downloads/positionpapers/protecting-children-unhealthy-food-advertising-promotion.pdfhttp://www.yaleruddcenter.org/marketingpledges/http://www.yaleruddcenter.org/marketingpledges/http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/4364.0.55.009~2011-12~Main%20Features~Key%20Findings~1http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/4364.0.55.009~2011-12~Main%20Features~Key%20Findings~1http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/4364.0.55.009~2011-12~Main%20Features~Key%20Findings~1

The normative power of food promotions: Australian children’s attachments to unhealthy foodbrandsMethodsSamplingMeasuresProcedureAnalyses

Table 1Rating of brands on ‘cool’, ‘exciting’ and ‘fun’ scales, and mean overall brand rating, in an online survey by children aged 10–16 years (n 417), New South Wales, Australia, October–November2ResultsSample characteristicsFood and drink brand affectPerceptions of food brandsPerceptions of users of food brandsPerceptions of food brand ‘personalities’

Fig. 1Mean ratings on semantic differential scales (with 1 indicating strong positive perceptions and 5 indicating strong negative perceptions) for (a) users of beverage brands (=DiscussionTable 2Agreement with statements about brand-as-a-person in an online survey by children aged 10–16 years (n 417), New South Wales, Australia, October–November2014Table 3Association between engagement with food brands on Facebook and agreement about making ‘friends’ with brands in an online survey among children aged 10–16 years (n 417), New South Wales, Australia, October–November2014ConclusionAcknowledgementsACKNOWLEDGEMENTSSupplementary materialReferences