July 19, 2007
Companies Agree to Restrict Ads Targeting Kids
Eleven companies that are responsible for roughly two-thirds of all advertising directed at kids have announced plans to limit the number and types of advertising each runs on programming (television, radio, print and online) catering to children 12 and younger.
The companies made the pledge in advance of a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) hearing next week that was certain to put added pressure on brands and businesses seen as contributing to the obesity problem in America’s youth.
According to The Associated Press, “The self-imposed rules include pledges by seven companies who will no longer use licensed characters, such as those made popular through movies or TV shows, to advertise online or in print media unless they’re promoting their healthier products. Four other companies said they do not advertise at all to children under 12.”
With the latest announcement, Cadbury Adams USA, Campbell Soup, Coca-Cola, General Mills, The Hershey Co., Masterfoods USA, McDonald’s, PepsiCo, and Unilever join Kellogg’s, Kraft Foods and Walt Disney Co. in making the commitment to help deal with the childhood obesity problem in America.
Margo Wootan, nutrition policy director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, congratulated the companies on the announcement. “I think this is a very good step forward,” she told The Associated Press. “It’s not the end of the journey but it’s a good way down the road.”
Mary Sophos, senior vice president and chief government affairs officer at the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), said in a press release, “This news represents another bold step forward by the industry in the battle against childhood obesity and the promotion of healthy lifestyles.”
Discussion Questions: Where in your mind do food companies stand in terms of responsibility for dealing with the childhood obesity problem? How would you rate the progress that the food industry has made in promoting healthy lifestyles for kids?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
Part of the consumer demand for sugary or high fat foods is because young children are asking for them and manufacturers have created advertising for sugary or high fat foods directed toward children younger than 12. Identifying who is directly responsible for feeding these foods to children younger than 12 is a separate question. Certainly the manufacturers have helped create demand.
In light of the research that young children can distinguish the difference between informational and persuasive communication the manufacturers do bear some responsibility for creating demand.
My basic instincts agree with David and others: parents should be the ultimate arbiters of what their kids eat. My kids watch their share of TV, and believe me, they know every sugared cereal out there. Yet our pantry’s cereal shelf looks like an ad for the Council on Eating Bark, Twigs, and Whole Oats.
Still, when parents or our elected representatives say “Help us, it shouldn’t be this hard.” (Or “Uh, we have no idea what our kids eat”), then we should be heard and receive a response, and if the response is inadequate, legislation isn’t inappropriate. Our society isn’t so free and our capitalism so absolute that we do not reserve the right to help ourselves have better lives.
So industry must respond and the response should be genuine. Yes, it may be the case that they just heavy up on early prime time shows that are watched by the same kids, but it’s unlikely that ruse will escape notice for long. Parents will continue to buy sugared cereals and other less-healthy foods for themselves and their kids. Hopefully they’ll do so in moderation and in an informed manner. If their spending shifts to healthier alternatives sold by the same companies, even better for the companies that make them–their profits will be healthy and so will our kids.
The companies are agreeing to restrict targeting ads for children of unhealthy, i.e.sugary/fat-laden/color-additive products. That is a good step forward. True, their job is to make a profit and perhaps not really worry about the ethical obligations to the public’s health and well-being. However, they can continue to make a profit if they capture both “ends” of the market.
They will offer and advertise more healthful choices such as whole-grain, reduced sugar (not fake sugars), naturally flavored and colored products, and non-caffeinated choices in the same target market as the bad choices. Ultimately parents do make the choices for their children’s nutrition and most truly care about their children’s health. The links to bad nutrition and increasing numbers of ADHD children are becoming more publicized.
Offer better choices, consumers will listen and respond.
I agree with the posts that suggest the parent’s responsibility. My five year hasn’t purchased her own cereal yet and won’t for some time. I’m the parent and I make the purchases. Working in advertising, I point out to her what commercials are and that they are selling their product. I tell her that healthy food gives her more energy to run and jump and learn, etc. Does she occasionally have a McDonald’s happy meal? Yes. It’s all moderation and shouldn’t be the responsibility of the advertiser. I just saw an ad the other day in a woman’s magazine for something high calorie/high fat with an attractive slim model. Will it then be regulated that the obesity epidemic is related to showing attractive models in ads and should reflect the reality of eating too much?
Parents are responsible for what their children eat, but this regulation doesn’t offend me excessively (though I doubt it will have all that much effect).
As another cynic, I note that this rule relates to advertising–I wonder how much of the ad budgets will be shifted to in-store promotion of these products (with shelf signage at eye-level for kids riding in the cart)?
When tobacco companies agreed to restrict their advertising, profits rose nicely. Advertising to kids is a major cost for any brand like Kellogg’s, McDonald’s, etc. Licensing fees have also risen steadily over the past few decades. So the companies get nice publicity, give sympathetic lawmakers a reason to avoid further regulation, and allow mutual cost reduction. It’s similar to international peace treaties and disarmament: the nations involved spend less on their armies and thereby enhance their economies. And here’s another bonus: when TV lost tobacco, ad prices declined, so non-tobacco advertisers got better buys. Masterfoods, General Mills, Coke, et al certainly spend plenty reaching adults, so those ad dollars will go further.
Advertising is impactful on this highly impressionable age group, namely kids. However, there are dozens of other variables and realities causing the obesity problem. I’m not a huge fan of blaming and regulating advertising to cure our ills. Maybe a step in the right direction but expectations should be kept in proportion.
Food companies have a responsibility to be honest and upfront about the products they promote. This preemptive move by these leading companies is a good start. These companies can only do so much. Consumers are going to do what they want to do (i.e., smoking gives you cancer, no doubt, so why are there still thousands that smoke?)
Education at a very young age is needed and parents need to understand the ramifications of obesity. Parents also need to take some responsibility!
Camille is dead on. Anyone who’s worked in the ad industry understands the dirty unspoken goal of figuring out what is going to trigger a buy and doing everything psychologically and creatively to make it happen. Although I didn’t work on the account, my old Agency had a tobacco account and their methods to get inside the minds of the “younger demographic” (AKA teens and college kids!) and translate their learnings into alluring strategy could make your hair curl. Up to this point, marketing junk food to kids is not altogether different. People are studying how to create the drool-to-pester-the-parent effect and the acting accordingly.
David and Janet are indeed right in that parents do have a role. However, if you live in a city like myself, it’s very obvious when looking at specific demographic groups that there are parents who have little involvement in their child’s eating habits…and they expect TVs and public schools to provide a majority of their life education. Combine this with a decline in physical education at school due to law suits and it’s just a scary combo.
Net-net, this is a move in the right direction; but it’s going to take a concerted effort from many angles to make a real dent in the issue. *If you want some interesting insights on this topic, the book “Fast Food Nation does” a brilliant job of it.
Food companies are undoubtedly–to a certain extent–responsible for what we eat. Personal and parental responsibility, education and peer pressure are also–to a certain extent–responsible. Within that context, all moves to be responsible about what is sold, and advertised, are good. Forgive me for repeating something I’ve said here many times before, but it seems to me that if advertising doesn’t sell products, the spend is usually increased considerably until the products sell. The whole point of advertising is to get us to buy things. Changing the focus of advertising to healthier products would be excellent; I just hope it attracts the same amount of money that has been put into advertising other products in the past. (But I applaud Mark’s comments about how profits will go up if ad spend goes down as will ad costs to others. It’s reassuring to know I’m not the only cynic around these here parts.)
By way of a proviso, I would also point to a recent study by the National Consumers Council in the UK which showed that fewer than half of the 12-13 year olds questioned (admittedly a smallish sample of 577) watched children’s programmes. Many as young as nine apparently picked out soaps, reality and horror shows among their favourites. So, not advertising on children’s television isn’t necessarily going to reduce the amount of pressure on the majority of under 12s who will see it on the other shows they watch. (And it will be interesting to see how the spend on healthy vs. unhealthy products changes in this context.)
In addition, as we well know, more kids spend more time online than in front of the television so the sometimes indirect ways in which they are targeted through websites also demands attention. The definition of advertising online is somewhat vague and still leaves a great deal of room for manoeuvre in what is an apparently heartfelt promise by the food manufacturers.
Finally, in this country at least, many adults are waking up to the fact that children are being kept indoors too much, not allowed out to play and encouraged to spend time “safely” in front of their screens. Moves are afoot to change all that.
A child’s diet is ultimately the parents responsibility. It is also their responsibility to eat right themselves and to be good examples. Everyone knows that a double whopper with fries is fattening. They also know that vegetables are good for you. I think more education is always helpful and should continue. But somethings are obvious.
The advertisers job is to promote their products. Unfortunately, we live in a society that looks to place blame on others. If I spill hot coffee on myself, it must be McDonald’s fault. People need to take responsibility for their own actions and stop pointing fingers. I’m not a fan of the way some advertisers make their products look so good, that a kid begs and begs for it. However, parents need to learn how to say “no.” Every time a new issue comes up, government jumps in with more restrictions. All this legislation eventually leads to less freedom.
I don’t think food companies have any responsibility at all. It is the job of the food companies to sell as much food as possible and to separate as much money as possible from the consumer’s pocket and transfer it into their own pockets. Children and their parents need to be responsible for their own consumer behavior. Perhaps schools could do a better job in educating students and perhaps set a good example by providing healthier lunches at school. Some may say that children are too young to make those decisions, however, it seems to me it would be their parents who control the money being spent. Is this really any different that using television personalities to target their marketing towards the demented elderly, selling them worthless products and services?
Until recently, I thought the obesity problem in the USA was overblown. Maybe I was living a sheltered life, since most of my friends and neighbors are responsible people, eat well, and belong to fitness clubs, etc. Then I went to rural Indiana to my hometown and visited the county fair. I thought I had walked into some sort of freak show. I couldn’t believe all the obese kids and adults. The adults are old enough to know better but I could see that we need to do something to better educate the children with regards to nutrition. Maybe have mandatory nutrition/health wellness classes.
Are we seeing a movement for better eating practices by the food manufacturers and with supermarket support?
What took so long? With kids weighing 50 or more pounds then they should. Sad situation to propel these changes that surfaced 25 years ago, or more.
Hmmmmmmm… and now, it is honesty that enticed all the companies and the fast foods industry….
We have a nationwide problem with obesity. It is good that the companies will restrict ads. That in and of itself is not enough. When I grew up (beginning to sound like my father) we had mandatory phys ed. We had to do sit-ups and push-ups. Let’s get back to that as well. Parents should curtail the amount of time watching TV and spent on the Internet. We ALL need more physical activity. Present company included!
I agree with Janet, above. Am I just on the unpopular side of the fence this time? 🙂
Ultimately, good judgment from parents and children is crucial in this area, and so many others as well. People like these products, and there is nothing wrong with marketing to people who will enjoy them.
It is the same concept with smoking and other items that are generally terrible for you in excess. People should think before they shop, and let organizations focus on effectively reaching their target market effectively.
It is great to see the different comments regarding a sensitive issue like this.
Nowadays, it is more often than mentioned that children are the decision makers while deciding on the purchase basket, so obviously the food industry is especially targeting this particular segment.
Now, whether the ad ban will really work or not is a matter of consumer understanding..,we keep saying that “Consumer is KING” so it’s pretty obvious that the advertisers will do anything possible to lure them. But ultimately, the consumers in this case are the kids but they are not the real buyers. They are being funded by their parents and hence, the food that comes into the home is the parents’ decision; kids are just the influencers.
So ultimately, if obesity has to be controlled, it lies in parents’ hands. What they stock in their home and how much they give way to their child’s tantrums and askings will be what decides the purchase basket at the end. So advertisers basically do not hold this responsibility, it’s basically on the family, and especially parents!
When your kids feel hungry you as a parent have to decide whether you give them fruits to eat or a bag of chips!
More Discussions
Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?OpenAI Names the Infrastructure Standard for Agentic Commerce
Will OpenAI or Google (or another entity) set the gold standard for agentic commerce?Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?
Part of the consumer demand for sugary or high fat foods is because young children are asking for them and manufacturers have created advertising for sugary or high fat foods directed toward children younger than 12. Identifying who is directly responsible for feeding these foods to children younger than 12 is a separate question. Certainly the manufacturers have helped create demand.
In light of the research that young children can distinguish the difference between informational and persuasive communication the manufacturers do bear some responsibility for creating demand.
My basic instincts agree with David and others: parents should be the ultimate arbiters of what their kids eat. My kids watch their share of TV, and believe me, they know every sugared cereal out there. Yet our pantry’s cereal shelf looks like an ad for the Council on Eating Bark, Twigs, and Whole Oats.
Still, when parents or our elected representatives say “Help us, it shouldn’t be this hard.” (Or “Uh, we have no idea what our kids eat”), then we should be heard and receive a response, and if the response is inadequate, legislation isn’t inappropriate. Our society isn’t so free and our capitalism so absolute that we do not reserve the right to help ourselves have better lives.
So industry must respond and the response should be genuine. Yes, it may be the case that they just heavy up on early prime time shows that are watched by the same kids, but it’s unlikely that ruse will escape notice for long. Parents will continue to buy sugared cereals and other less-healthy foods for themselves and their kids. Hopefully they’ll do so in moderation and in an informed manner. If their spending shifts to healthier alternatives sold by the same companies, even better for the companies that make them–their profits will be healthy and so will our kids.
The companies are agreeing to restrict targeting ads for children of unhealthy, i.e.sugary/fat-laden/color-additive products. That is a good step forward. True, their job is to make a profit and perhaps not really worry about the ethical obligations to the public’s health and well-being. However, they can continue to make a profit if they capture both “ends” of the market.
They will offer and advertise more healthful choices such as whole-grain, reduced sugar (not fake sugars), naturally flavored and colored products, and non-caffeinated choices in the same target market as the bad choices. Ultimately parents do make the choices for their children’s nutrition and most truly care about their children’s health. The links to bad nutrition and increasing numbers of ADHD children are becoming more publicized.
Offer better choices, consumers will listen and respond.
I agree with the posts that suggest the parent’s responsibility. My five year hasn’t purchased her own cereal yet and won’t for some time. I’m the parent and I make the purchases. Working in advertising, I point out to her what commercials are and that they are selling their product. I tell her that healthy food gives her more energy to run and jump and learn, etc. Does she occasionally have a McDonald’s happy meal? Yes. It’s all moderation and shouldn’t be the responsibility of the advertiser. I just saw an ad the other day in a woman’s magazine for something high calorie/high fat with an attractive slim model. Will it then be regulated that the obesity epidemic is related to showing attractive models in ads and should reflect the reality of eating too much?
Parents are responsible for what their children eat, but this regulation doesn’t offend me excessively (though I doubt it will have all that much effect).
As another cynic, I note that this rule relates to advertising–I wonder how much of the ad budgets will be shifted to in-store promotion of these products (with shelf signage at eye-level for kids riding in the cart)?
When tobacco companies agreed to restrict their advertising, profits rose nicely. Advertising to kids is a major cost for any brand like Kellogg’s, McDonald’s, etc. Licensing fees have also risen steadily over the past few decades. So the companies get nice publicity, give sympathetic lawmakers a reason to avoid further regulation, and allow mutual cost reduction. It’s similar to international peace treaties and disarmament: the nations involved spend less on their armies and thereby enhance their economies. And here’s another bonus: when TV lost tobacco, ad prices declined, so non-tobacco advertisers got better buys. Masterfoods, General Mills, Coke, et al certainly spend plenty reaching adults, so those ad dollars will go further.
Advertising is impactful on this highly impressionable age group, namely kids. However, there are dozens of other variables and realities causing the obesity problem. I’m not a huge fan of blaming and regulating advertising to cure our ills. Maybe a step in the right direction but expectations should be kept in proportion.
Food companies have a responsibility to be honest and upfront about the products they promote. This preemptive move by these leading companies is a good start. These companies can only do so much. Consumers are going to do what they want to do (i.e., smoking gives you cancer, no doubt, so why are there still thousands that smoke?)
Education at a very young age is needed and parents need to understand the ramifications of obesity. Parents also need to take some responsibility!
Camille is dead on. Anyone who’s worked in the ad industry understands the dirty unspoken goal of figuring out what is going to trigger a buy and doing everything psychologically and creatively to make it happen. Although I didn’t work on the account, my old Agency had a tobacco account and their methods to get inside the minds of the “younger demographic” (AKA teens and college kids!) and translate their learnings into alluring strategy could make your hair curl. Up to this point, marketing junk food to kids is not altogether different. People are studying how to create the drool-to-pester-the-parent effect and the acting accordingly.
David and Janet are indeed right in that parents do have a role. However, if you live in a city like myself, it’s very obvious when looking at specific demographic groups that there are parents who have little involvement in their child’s eating habits…and they expect TVs and public schools to provide a majority of their life education. Combine this with a decline in physical education at school due to law suits and it’s just a scary combo.
Net-net, this is a move in the right direction; but it’s going to take a concerted effort from many angles to make a real dent in the issue. *If you want some interesting insights on this topic, the book “Fast Food Nation does” a brilliant job of it.
Food companies are undoubtedly–to a certain extent–responsible for what we eat. Personal and parental responsibility, education and peer pressure are also–to a certain extent–responsible. Within that context, all moves to be responsible about what is sold, and advertised, are good. Forgive me for repeating something I’ve said here many times before, but it seems to me that if advertising doesn’t sell products, the spend is usually increased considerably until the products sell. The whole point of advertising is to get us to buy things. Changing the focus of advertising to healthier products would be excellent; I just hope it attracts the same amount of money that has been put into advertising other products in the past. (But I applaud Mark’s comments about how profits will go up if ad spend goes down as will ad costs to others. It’s reassuring to know I’m not the only cynic around these here parts.)
By way of a proviso, I would also point to a recent study by the National Consumers Council in the UK which showed that fewer than half of the 12-13 year olds questioned (admittedly a smallish sample of 577) watched children’s programmes. Many as young as nine apparently picked out soaps, reality and horror shows among their favourites. So, not advertising on children’s television isn’t necessarily going to reduce the amount of pressure on the majority of under 12s who will see it on the other shows they watch. (And it will be interesting to see how the spend on healthy vs. unhealthy products changes in this context.)
In addition, as we well know, more kids spend more time online than in front of the television so the sometimes indirect ways in which they are targeted through websites also demands attention. The definition of advertising online is somewhat vague and still leaves a great deal of room for manoeuvre in what is an apparently heartfelt promise by the food manufacturers.
Finally, in this country at least, many adults are waking up to the fact that children are being kept indoors too much, not allowed out to play and encouraged to spend time “safely” in front of their screens. Moves are afoot to change all that.
A child’s diet is ultimately the parents responsibility. It is also their responsibility to eat right themselves and to be good examples. Everyone knows that a double whopper with fries is fattening. They also know that vegetables are good for you. I think more education is always helpful and should continue. But somethings are obvious.
The advertisers job is to promote their products. Unfortunately, we live in a society that looks to place blame on others. If I spill hot coffee on myself, it must be McDonald’s fault. People need to take responsibility for their own actions and stop pointing fingers. I’m not a fan of the way some advertisers make their products look so good, that a kid begs and begs for it. However, parents need to learn how to say “no.” Every time a new issue comes up, government jumps in with more restrictions. All this legislation eventually leads to less freedom.
I don’t think food companies have any responsibility at all. It is the job of the food companies to sell as much food as possible and to separate as much money as possible from the consumer’s pocket and transfer it into their own pockets. Children and their parents need to be responsible for their own consumer behavior. Perhaps schools could do a better job in educating students and perhaps set a good example by providing healthier lunches at school. Some may say that children are too young to make those decisions, however, it seems to me it would be their parents who control the money being spent. Is this really any different that using television personalities to target their marketing towards the demented elderly, selling them worthless products and services?
Until recently, I thought the obesity problem in the USA was overblown. Maybe I was living a sheltered life, since most of my friends and neighbors are responsible people, eat well, and belong to fitness clubs, etc. Then I went to rural Indiana to my hometown and visited the county fair. I thought I had walked into some sort of freak show. I couldn’t believe all the obese kids and adults. The adults are old enough to know better but I could see that we need to do something to better educate the children with regards to nutrition. Maybe have mandatory nutrition/health wellness classes.
Are we seeing a movement for better eating practices by the food manufacturers and with supermarket support?
What took so long? With kids weighing 50 or more pounds then they should. Sad situation to propel these changes that surfaced 25 years ago, or more.
Hmmmmmmm… and now, it is honesty that enticed all the companies and the fast foods industry….
We have a nationwide problem with obesity. It is good that the companies will restrict ads. That in and of itself is not enough. When I grew up (beginning to sound like my father) we had mandatory phys ed. We had to do sit-ups and push-ups. Let’s get back to that as well. Parents should curtail the amount of time watching TV and spent on the Internet. We ALL need more physical activity. Present company included!
I agree with Janet, above. Am I just on the unpopular side of the fence this time? 🙂
Ultimately, good judgment from parents and children is crucial in this area, and so many others as well. People like these products, and there is nothing wrong with marketing to people who will enjoy them.
It is the same concept with smoking and other items that are generally terrible for you in excess. People should think before they shop, and let organizations focus on effectively reaching their target market effectively.
It is great to see the different comments regarding a sensitive issue like this.
Nowadays, it is more often than mentioned that children are the decision makers while deciding on the purchase basket, so obviously the food industry is especially targeting this particular segment.
Now, whether the ad ban will really work or not is a matter of consumer understanding..,we keep saying that “Consumer is KING” so it’s pretty obvious that the advertisers will do anything possible to lure them. But ultimately, the consumers in this case are the kids but they are not the real buyers. They are being funded by their parents and hence, the food that comes into the home is the parents’ decision; kids are just the influencers.
So ultimately, if obesity has to be controlled, it lies in parents’ hands. What they stock in their home and how much they give way to their child’s tantrums and askings will be what decides the purchase basket at the end. So advertisers basically do not hold this responsibility, it’s basically on the family, and especially parents!
When your kids feel hungry you as a parent have to decide whether you give them fruits to eat or a bag of chips!