References: Speers, S. Harris, J. Schwartz, M. (2011) 'Child and Adolescent Exposure to Food and Beverage Brand Appearances During Prime-Time Television Programming', American Journal of Preventative Medicine, Volume 41, Issue 3, Pages 291-296.
The following article talks about how food marketers target children during prime-time television programmes through product placement. With food and beverage marketing being a primary contributor to childhood obesity, product placements are a sneaky way of getting around the rules and regulations that are in place to improve the health of children.
Food, beverage, and restaurant brands appeared a total of 35,000 times within prime-time TV programming examined by Nielsen in 2008. Regular soft drinks, traditional restaurants (i.e., not quickserve), and energy/sports drinks made up 60% of all brand appearances. Young people viewed relatively few of these appearances with one notable exception. Coca-Cola products were seen 198 times by the average child and 269 times by the average adolescent during prime-time shows over the year, accounting for 70% of child exposure and 61% of adolescent exposure to brand appearances. One show, American Idol, accounted for more than 95% of these exposures. Exposure of children to Coca-Cola products through traditional advertisements was much less common.
Brand appearances for most food industry companies, except for Coca-Cola, are relatively rare during prime-time programming with large youth audiences. Coca-Cola has pledged to refrain from advertising to children, yet the average child views almost four Coke appearances on prime-time TV every week. This analysis reveals a substantial, potential loophole in current food industry self-regulatory pledges to advertise only better-for-you foods to children.
This article highlights one of the loopholes in which marketers are using in order to target children. On the one hand, we have people fighting for regulations to be put in place and on the other, we have marketers finding new ways to avoid those regulations and get their messages across anyway. It seems that the regulations that are put in place, in this case, are simply not specific enough and have far too many loopholes in which the marketers can use to avoid the new rules. By saying they can't advertise/product place to programmes viewed primarily by under 12's isn't enough as when it comes to family shows where the whole family are watching, including those under 12's, they are using this as an opportunity to put lots of ad's and product placements in.
Not only are the regulations too vague, product placement in general is a very sneaky way to advertise products, especially to children who don't see past what they are aiming to do. It is, in a way, a hidden/subliminal message as children are viewing the products without even realising and then they are suddenly more likely to choose that product over another (as explained by the coca-cola and pepsi example within the article).
This study has touched on some subjects which I would like to find out more about. I want to find out whether there are any more loopholes which are being used and also how exactly these product placements and advertisements are having an effect on children, do they really have as big of an effect as what this article implies?
The following article talks about how food marketers target children during prime-time television programmes through product placement. With food and beverage marketing being a primary contributor to childhood obesity, product placements are a sneaky way of getting around the rules and regulations that are in place to improve the health of children.
In one study,8
children who viewed a movie scene in which a bottle of
Pepsi was placed on the table were more likely to choose
Pepsi over Coke compared to those who watched the
same scene without the Pepsi bottle, even when the children did not remember seeing the Pepsi bottle.
In 2006, the Council of Better Business Bureaus launched the voluntary Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI), which required participating companies to “cease paying for or actively seeking to place their food and beverage products in editorial/ programming content that is primarily directed to children aged 12 years for the purpose of promoting the sale of those products.”13 However, the CFBAI has been criticized for shortcomings that allow companies to continue to advertise nutrient-poor foods to youth.6,14 Notably, limitations on product placements do not apply to TV programs with broad general audiences that include many children. Approximately 50% of children’s exposure to traditional food advertisements occurs on these types of general-audience programs.15
Nearly 35,000 food, beverage, and restaurant brands appeared on prime-time TV programming in 2008. Three categories (other restaurants, regular soft drinks, and energy/ sports drinks) made up the majority of appearances. Children and adolescents viewed approximately 0.8 and 1.2 of these brand appearances every day; and regular soft drinks represented three quarters of this exposure.
Coca-Cola alone represented 70% of brand appearances viewed by children. As a participant in the CFBAI, Coca-Cola has pledged it will not “engage in child-directed food and beverage advertising.”13 However, children viewed prime-time brand appearances for Coca- Cola products nearly four times per week in 2008. PepsiCo was the company with the second-highest exposure to brand appearances; but children viewed just eight PepsiCo product appearances in total in 2008.
Overall, CFBAI participating companies’ products made up 80% of brand appearances viewed by children. Thus this analysis reveals a substantial loophole in the CFBAI pledges that Coca-Cola alone appears to have taken advantage of; companies can claim they will not advertise to children while still exposing children to substantial numbers of product placements on prime-time TV.
In 2006, the Council of Better Business Bureaus launched the voluntary Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI), which required participating companies to “cease paying for or actively seeking to place their food and beverage products in editorial/ programming content that is primarily directed to children aged 12 years for the purpose of promoting the sale of those products.”13 However, the CFBAI has been criticized for shortcomings that allow companies to continue to advertise nutrient-poor foods to youth.6,14 Notably, limitations on product placements do not apply to TV programs with broad general audiences that include many children. Approximately 50% of children’s exposure to traditional food advertisements occurs on these types of general-audience programs.15
Nearly 35,000 food, beverage, and restaurant brands appeared on prime-time TV programming in 2008. Three categories (other restaurants, regular soft drinks, and energy/ sports drinks) made up the majority of appearances. Children and adolescents viewed approximately 0.8 and 1.2 of these brand appearances every day; and regular soft drinks represented three quarters of this exposure.
Coca-Cola alone represented 70% of brand appearances viewed by children. As a participant in the CFBAI, Coca-Cola has pledged it will not “engage in child-directed food and beverage advertising.”13 However, children viewed prime-time brand appearances for Coca- Cola products nearly four times per week in 2008. PepsiCo was the company with the second-highest exposure to brand appearances; but children viewed just eight PepsiCo product appearances in total in 2008.
Overall, CFBAI participating companies’ products made up 80% of brand appearances viewed by children. Thus this analysis reveals a substantial loophole in the CFBAI pledges that Coca-Cola alone appears to have taken advantage of; companies can claim they will not advertise to children while still exposing children to substantial numbers of product placements on prime-time TV.
Food, beverage, and restaurant brands appeared a total of 35,000 times within prime-time TV programming examined by Nielsen in 2008. Regular soft drinks, traditional restaurants (i.e., not quickserve), and energy/sports drinks made up 60% of all brand appearances. Young people viewed relatively few of these appearances with one notable exception. Coca-Cola products were seen 198 times by the average child and 269 times by the average adolescent during prime-time shows over the year, accounting for 70% of child exposure and 61% of adolescent exposure to brand appearances. One show, American Idol, accounted for more than 95% of these exposures. Exposure of children to Coca-Cola products through traditional advertisements was much less common.
Brand appearances for most food industry companies, except for Coca-Cola, are relatively rare during prime-time programming with large youth audiences. Coca-Cola has pledged to refrain from advertising to children, yet the average child views almost four Coke appearances on prime-time TV every week. This analysis reveals a substantial, potential loophole in current food industry self-regulatory pledges to advertise only better-for-you foods to children.
This article highlights one of the loopholes in which marketers are using in order to target children. On the one hand, we have people fighting for regulations to be put in place and on the other, we have marketers finding new ways to avoid those regulations and get their messages across anyway. It seems that the regulations that are put in place, in this case, are simply not specific enough and have far too many loopholes in which the marketers can use to avoid the new rules. By saying they can't advertise/product place to programmes viewed primarily by under 12's isn't enough as when it comes to family shows where the whole family are watching, including those under 12's, they are using this as an opportunity to put lots of ad's and product placements in.
Not only are the regulations too vague, product placement in general is a very sneaky way to advertise products, especially to children who don't see past what they are aiming to do. It is, in a way, a hidden/subliminal message as children are viewing the products without even realising and then they are suddenly more likely to choose that product over another (as explained by the coca-cola and pepsi example within the article).
This study has touched on some subjects which I would like to find out more about. I want to find out whether there are any more loopholes which are being used and also how exactly these product placements and advertisements are having an effect on children, do they really have as big of an effect as what this article implies?
No comments:
Post a Comment