No Slide Title by k8326xD


									Responsible food advertising

           Suzanne Edmond

         Public Affairs Manager

 •   The media hype

 •   The facts of the debate

 •   Responsible advertising

 •   New media - new rules.

 •   What next?
The media hype

 •   Campaigners call for a complete ban
 •   A campaign of principle or politics?
 •   A sense of sensibility?
      Campaigners call for a complete ban
Financial Times 22 June 2006

                                                                     Guardian 26 August 2006

                                            Telegraph 16 June 2006
A campaign of principle or politics?
A sense of sensibility?

             Public lukewarm on junk food ban,
             says watchdog
             Monday October 9, 2006
The facts of the debate

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

 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 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
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 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.

        Minister for Public Health (2006)
        My concerns are focused on protecting primary school aged children

   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).
What the consumer wants

                                             Public opinion research (2006)
                 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
Responsible advertising: What is the industry doing?

 •   TV viewing behaviour
 •   The industry’s manifesto
 •   Programming - children’s and lifestyle
    TV viewing behaviour

•    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.
The industry’s 7 point plan

•   More helpful labelling: collective voluntary actions

•   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.
Package 4

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).
Programming - children’s and lifestyle

                  MEDIA SMART
New media - new rules

•   New advertising standards
•   Content proposals
•   Reducing children’s exposure to advertising
•   What next: reviewing non-broadcast advertising
New 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

•   Would be probably the toughest set of code restrictions in the world.
    Celebrities and licensed characters

                                                             Example provided by Kellogg’s

•   Not to be used in any advertisements targeted directly at children under 10.
    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.
What else do the content proposals deliver?

 •   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.
         Reducing children’s exposure to advertising

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







                                    2001        2002         2003        2004         2005      Package 4*

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

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

•   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

To top