Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Eagle, L. and Brennan, R. (2007) Beyond advertising: in home promotion of ”fast food”. Young Consumers, 8 (4). pp. 278-288. ISSN 1747-3616 Available from: http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/13546 We recommend you cite the published version. The publisher’s URL is: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17473610710838635 Refereed: No (no note) Disclaimer UWE has obtained warranties from all depositors as to their title in the material deposited and as to their right to deposit such material. UWE makes no representation or warranties of commercial utility, title, or fitness for a particular purpose or any other warranty, express or implied in respect of any material deposited. UWE makes no representation that the use of the materials will not infringe any patent, copyright, trademark or other property or proprietary rights. UWE accepts no liability for any infringement of intellectual property rights in any material deposited but will remove such material from public view pending investigation in the event of an allegation of any such infringement. PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR TEXT. Beyond Advertising: In-home Promotion of „Fast Food‟ Lynne Eagle Professor of Marketing Bristol Business School University of the West of England Frenchay Campus Coldharbour Lane BRISTOL BS16 1QY Ross Brennan Reader in Marketing Middlesex University Business School The Burroughs Hendon LONDON NW4 4BT Lynne Eagle is Professor of Marketing at Bristol Business School where her research interests centre on the impact of marketing communication activity on society and implications for public policy decisions. The specific focus is on marketing communication effects and effectiveness in relation to social marketing and health promotional activity. Ross Brennan is Reader in Marketing at Middlesex University Business School. His research interests are in business-to-business marketing, strategic marketing, and social marketing. Beyond Advertising: In-home Promotion of „Fast Food‟ Abstract Purpose This paper discusses the range of potential influences on children‟s food choices, suggesting that recent restrictions on advertising of some foods may not be as effective as expected. Homedelivered food promotional materials are used to illustrate the types of promotional activity which are not covered by recent regulatory actions. Methodology / Approach All food promotional leaflets and flyers delivered to households over a four month period were analysed in terms of their overall content and whether healthy options were included in the content or in special promotional offers. Findings Ninety percent of the material featured foods whose advertising would potentially be restricted if it were placed in media for which regulations were tightened in early 2007. Few included healthy options in menus – and none offered these as part of their special promotions. Research limitations / implications Material was collected from only one area of a large English city; however it is reasonable to assume that the type of material received is broadly representative of the material likely to be distributed across the UK and possibly other countries as well. Practical implications Increased restriction of advertising of some types of food products does not address the myriad influences on children‟s food choices. If the restrictions fail to deliver the expected benefits, further restrictions are likely to follow, but concentrating on one potential factor in isolation while failing to consider the wide range of influences on food choices means that even tighter restrictions are unlikely to achieve the intended results. Policy makers should consider the wider environmental factors which may influence food choices, and the development of health promotion strategies that reflect a more holistic and integrated approach than is currently occurring. Originality / value There are few studies of the potential impact of factors other than advertising. The findings of this study suggest that lobbyists, policy makers and advertisers alike should take a more holistic view of potential influences on dietary choice. Keywords Advertising, Children, Food products. Paper type Research paper 2 Introduction and background There is a clear consensus that obesity is linked to long-term, serious health problems (Ahmad 1997; Danner and Molony 2002; Homer and Simpson 2007). Governments have taken regulatory action in several countries to try to reduce obesity rates, particularly among children. (Broadcasting Commission of Ireland 2004; OFCOM 2006). Much of this action has been designed to reduce the advertising of foods deemed to be of low nutritional value and potentially damaging to health. Lobbyists and policy makers alike have largely ignored the impact of the wider environment and the range of explicit and implicit signals to which children – and their families – are exposed (Livingstone 2005). In an increasingly acrimonious debate, the efficacy of advertising restrictions has been called into question, with some arguing that the influence of advertising is relatively small (Livingstone 2006; Royal Society of Medicine 2004). An example of recent regulatory actions that have been taken in the UK to restrict the amount and type of food advertising to which children are exposed is shown in the following quotation from an OFCOM press release; similar restrictions have been introduced, or are under consideration in other countries (Better Business Bureau 2006; Broadcasting Commission of Ireland 2004). “Ofcom has concluded it is appropriate and necessary to adopt restrictions intended to reduce significantly the exposure of children under 16 to HFSS* advertising. Scheduling restrictions In light of concerns raised in the course of the consultation, the scheduling restrictions will now come into effect on a phased basis for all channels, as follows: • From 1 April 2007, HFSS advertisements will not be permitted in or around programmes made for children (including pre-school children), or in or around programmes that are likely to be of particular appeal to children aged 4-9; and • From 1 January 2008, HFSS advertisements will not be permitted in or around programmes made for children (including pre-school children), or in or around programmes that are likely to be of particular appeal to children aged 4-15. As set out in the November Statement, children‟s channels will be allowed a graduated phase-in period, with full implementation required by the end of December 2008”. (OFCOM 2006) *HFSS: foods high in fat, salt or sugar The UK regulatory action, while well intentioned, has been criticised for being excessive (Institute of Practitioners of Advertising 2007), for not going far enough (Which? Magazine 2006) and for being potentially ineffective (Royal Society of Medicine 2004). Restricting advertising content on television ignores the way in which food is portrayed within television programme content itself. Two studies, conducted in very different markets some twenty years apart have shown that in the USA (Kaufman 1980) and in New Zealand (Hawkins et al. 2004), advertisements portrayed food more responsibly than programmes with high levels of child viewers. However, regulatory authorities appear to have given no consideration to the effects that programme content may have in shaping or reinforcing food preferences. 3 Also ignored in this debate is the impact of new and emerging hybrid media forms, primarily via electronic media such as the Internet. These activities, such as games with embedded advertising content („advergames‟) represent an amalgam of entertainment and persuasion (Grigorovici and Constantin 2004; Shrum 2004). Children may be vulnerable to persuasive messages in this type of medium because of limited cognitive skill development which inhibits their ability to recognise the persuasive intent (Moore 2004). There is evidence that they may play these games 100 or more times (Gunn 2001). In addition, playing electronic games may be part of social identity formation through shared knowledge and interpretation in a similar way to the way television is used (Ritson and Elliott 1999). We are unable to locate any studies that have examined the impact of electronic media on social identity, nor the way that non-broadcast media forms affect social identity. While new media forms such as advergames are as yet unregulated (Dahl et al. 2006), advertising in non-broadcast media has received some recent attention. The UK Committee of Advertising Practice announced in early 2007 that, in addition to the rules covering broadcast media announced by OFCOM, tighter restrictions would also be applied to non-broadcast advertising with effect from 1 July 2007. These regulations cover print, poster and cinema advertising as well as sales promotions and some direct marketing activity if it involves the use of personal data. Their main purpose is to ensure that “marketing communications should not condone or encourage poor nutritional habits or an unhealthy lifestyle in children” (Committee of Advertising Practice 2007: 1). These regulations are intended to apply to leaflet advertising by restaurant and fast food outlets. Efforts to promote health eating practices to children are hampered by several factors. Firstly, if healthy eating is not reinforced in the home, the message may be lost (Hawkins et al. 2006). Secondly, the media themselves may contradict the preferred messages of the regulatory authorities. “News values can conflict with science, media and public health agendas” (Kline 2006: 50) For example, the UK has seen mainstream television programmes aimed at improving school meals and thus also improving children‟s overall diets. Celebrity chef Jamie Oliver has achieved considerable success, including an official endorsement and awards, in his campaign to improve British school meals (Beckett 2006). However, not all of the media have embraced his efforts, as the following example from a mass circulation British daily newspaper (the „Daily Mail‟ with a circulation of over 2.3 million copies a day and over five million readers) reveals. This newspaper has a readership profile that is broadly representative of the UK population – with nearly an equal number of men and women and substantial readership from all social grades (Newspaper Marketing Agency 2006). Four extremely hostile editorials were run criticising the impact of Oliver‟s campaign: Saturday September 16, p. 9 “Mothers defy Jamie to deliver junk food to the playground fence” Sunday September 24, p. 29 “How Jamie and the school meal fascists turn children into junk food addicts” Wednesday October 11, p. 30 Why I don‟t worship Saint Jamie” 4 Saturday October 14, p. 31 “Boy banished over „unhealthy‟ lunch” (child was not allowed to eat lunch that did not conform to recommended guidelines in front of his friends – was taken to the headmaster‟s office). Children‟s knowledge of nutritional information and labelling is unsophisticated (Neeley and Petricone 2006); children between the ages of seven and eleven are unable to connect information gained in class to situations such as purchase choices without prompting or reminders of their prior learning, and children under the age of seven are unable to apply prior learning even when prompted (John 1999; Moses and Baldwin 2005; Neeley and Schumann 2004). When children are presented with fast food menus, they are unlikely to be able to make decisions based on prior learning of healthy eating principles, particularly if these are not reinforced by parents. Despite what we know about the manner in which children learn and apply their learning, some lobbyists argue that that companies such as McDonald‟s should limit the provision of free gifts with Happy Meals since this will encourage children to choose healthier alternatives (Doonar 2004). This looks more like wishful thinking than applied, evidence-based social science. To illustrate the potential impact of one form of potentially persuasive communication that is not subject to the same restrictions as television advertising, an analysis of the content of home delivered food promotional material was undertaken. Method and results All leaflets, flyers and pamphlets or menu cards distributed to homes in one area of north-west London were collected over the period 1 December 2006 – 31 March 2007. A total of 30 pieces of material were obtained, 90% of which related to foods whose advertising would potentially be restricted if it were placed on television, as shown in Table 1. Only three potentially healthy options were received, with the overwhelming number of fast food leaflets concerning pizza outlets. (Insert Table 1 about here) The three flyers for potentially healthy food options were all very general in scope and did not offer specific food items, as shown in Table 2. (Insert Table 2 about here) Tables 3 and 4 summarise the type of meals promoted for the remaining 27 flyers. None of these explicitly targets children, so that they would not be in breach of existing, or likely future, regulations. There is some evidence of targeting at children via parents –for example “family fare” (TGF Pizza, which features a photo of two children eating large slices of pizza – with parents also eating pizza in the background of the photo) and “family feast” or family specials” (Bella Pizza, Choppaan Pizza and Kebab, Pizzaria which do not include people in their photos). Other advertisers feature options such as “variety bucket” (4 in One), “party feasts” or “party specials” (4 in One and Pukka Pizza, Pizzaria) but do not make explicit reference, either in the text or in the illustrations to children as potential consumers of the products. 5 The McDonald‟s leaflet concentrated on price discounts, while many of the other leaflets provided offers of free additional products, such as a 1.5 litre bottle of Coca-Cola (for example, Kiplings), buy-one-get-one-free deals (for example, Pizza Hi) or „bundles‟ of products such as pizza plus garlic bread plus soft drink (for example, TGF Pizza and Pizza GoGo) or upgrades from medium to large pizzas for £1.55 (Pizza „r‟ Us). This latter strategy in particular would presumably not be intended to encourage overeating but simply to improve sales, but may inadvertently have that effect with some customers (Chandon and Wansink 2007). There is evidence that consumers are more reluctant to subtract items from enhanced menu offerings than to voluntarily add items to a basic menu item, resulting in consumption of larger amounts of food than would be either intended or desirable (Levin et al. 2002). Similarly, Chandon and Wansink (2007) found in a review of several studies that, firstly, the majority of consumers simply fail to understand that larger portions or combinations of foods to make a large meal means more calories consumed, and, secondly, that calorie underestimation increases with meal size. Salads do not feature as an explicit menu item for either the Chinese or Indian menus; only one offered water as a menu option. Ten of the fourteen pizza companies offered at least one salad as part of the normal menu, however, only one offered salad as part of their special offers and only four offered an alternative to soft drinks (water) as part of the normal menu, none offered this as part of the special offers. None of the leaflets featured any form of nutritional information. Mandatory provision of nutritional information by restaurants has been suggested, particularly in the USA, with the intention of forcing multi-outlet chains to provide this (Bates and Huggins 2005). However, most of the leaflets in this analysis were from small, local outlets who would not be covered if provisions such as this were implemented. In any case the effectiveness of providing nutritional information is questionable since consumers seem to have poor understanding of such information (Anonymous 2006; Joppen 2005), so that it is likely that they may have difficulty in making healthy choices even with this information. Over 70% of Americans appear not to know the recommended daily calorie intake, and 80% do not know the maximum daily amounts of fat, carbohydrates or sodium they should consume, (Anonymous 2006). Similar levels of ignorance have also been found among UK university students (Brennan et al. 2008), therefore it is likely that many consumers would also not realise that many of the fast foods promoted in these leaflets are sufficiently high in fats and sodium as to be considered unhealthy food choices (Jacobson 2005). Industry publications acknowledge recommendations from nutritionists that smaller portions should be readily available (Kramer 2006), yet there is little evidence of this in the leaflets. Flame Pizza and Kebab offer a “kids meal” of chicken nuggets, chips and a can of (unspecified) drink for £1.99, and McDonald‟s offer Happy Meals for children. The Jun Peking restaurant did provide for half price children‟s meals – but only for their “eat as much as you like” promotion noted in Table 3. (Insert Table 3 about here) 6 (Insert Table 4 about here) McDonald‟s is perceived to provide relatively unhealthy meals (Doonar 2004; Primack 2004), but simple comparisons with other common fast food types suggests that McDonald‟s products are no worse than many others. It is difficult to provide more than an indicative comparison of food items across the range of menus presented, particularly in view of the number of special offers provided which bundle a range of foods together. However, Table 5 provides a comparison of the calories contained in typical Chinese, Indian and pizza menu items such as those featured in the leaflets and shows that several menu items contain considerably more calories than the McDonald‟s products featured. (Insert Table 5 about here) McDonald‟s themselves readily provide comparative data on the calories contained in their children‟s meal options, as shown in Table 6. The fact that there was no nutritional information on the single McDonald‟s menu leaflet received is rather surprising. The company has gained considerable media coverage for its global health initiatives and the provision of nutritional data on packaging and in its restaurants, something that has been readily provided for over fifteen years but which has only recently come into sharper focus as part of the obesity debate (Anonymous 2005; Doonar 2004; Garber 2005). (Insert Table 6 about here) So far we have concentrated on the analysis of fast food leaflets distributed by “door drop marketing”. However, the fast food outlets themselves are likely to have a direct effect on local food consumption. The local food environment is known to influence residents‟ diets (Jeffery and French 1998; Morland et al. 2002). The area in which the door drop leaflets were collected is a typical British metropolitan neighbourhood. There are three schools - one high school and two primary schools - in this neighbourhood. Within five minutes walk of these schools, and major bus stops used by school students, are several fast food outlets, two of which had distributed leaflets that were included in the analysis and which provided large window displays featuring some of the special deals listed in the leaflets. Numerous other food provision outlets are also in the neighbourhood, as shown in Table 7; similar numbers and types of outlets are located within another five minutes walk in either direction from these stores. The proprietor of the food store that does not stock fruit and vegetables advised the researchers that these products had been stocked in the past, but that there was no demand for them and so they were no longer stocked. According to the proprietor of this outlet (which is immediately adjacent to the high school) 30% of his turnover comes from the school‟s pupils before and after classes. None of these organisations are doing anything contrary to current legislative or regulatory provisions. (Insert Table 7 about here) 7 Conclusions, recommendations and suggestions for research There is a growing body of evidence that the long-term health of many people in the UK and other developed countries is likely to be damaged because of consistently unwise decisions by consumers about which foods to eat. Not only would such a trend cause a considerable amount of avoidable suffering, it would also put growing pressure on publicly funded health schemes at a time when the general ageing of the population is expected to stretch health budgets to the limit. Politicians, other policy-makers, consumer representative organisations and many journalists have recognised the potential crisis and there is a growing consensus that „something should be done‟. The most obvious targets at which to take aim are the large food manufacturers, the large chains of fast-food outlets, and their advertisers. Recent legislation in the UK to restrict the television advertising of food products to children is a good example. We cannot really tell whether the legislation will reduce the consumption of unhealthy food products by children, and certainly we cannot tell whether it will reduce long-term obesity, but at least something is seen to be done. The question is, are the actions taken likely to be beneficial, neutral, or actually harmful in the long run? The analysis of fast food leaflets illustrates the intensity of just one of a myriad of potential influences on children and family food choices that are not subject to the same restrictions that have been recently introduced for television advertisers in the UK. The analysis shows that the types of foods and, especially, the special offers contained in the leaflets, reflect the types of food that recent regulations seek to ban from television programmes with high numbers of child viewers. Failure to consider all the potential influences on children‟s diet may result, contrary to policymaker intentions, in little significant positive impact on dietary choices. In fact, there is a real danger that the interventions may actually have the opposite effect to that intended and that the type of products whose consumption is targeted may become more appealing – simply because of the attempts to restrict it (Mills 2001; Stewart and Martin 1994). What is needed is a more holistic approach to the evaluation of impacts on dietary choices and to the development of an integrated health promotion intervention programme that involves all sectors of the food provision industry as well as parents and children. What we have done in this paper is to draw attention to one area of food product marketing that has been entirely neglected in prior research and in prior policy-making. We have found that in this sector of the market the great majority of the products are unhealthy, in terms of fat, salt, sugar and energy (calorie) characteristics. However, in this sector of the market, rather than the high-street domination of the major global franchises we find a mixture of independent businesses and lower-profile franchised outlets. These businesses rely very largely on local marketing techniques, including display advertising in their shop windows and local door-drop marketing. For a variety of reasons this sector presents greater legislative challenges than the internationally famous brands such as Mcdonald‟s and Pizza Hut. Apart from anything else, legislating against the rich and powerful Mcdonald‟s organisation, which has been pilloried across several continents, is always going to be a lot more popular than legislating against the hard-pressed small businessman who is running a pizza shop to feed his family. 8 Two possible „substitution effects‟ illustrate the way in which high-profile, simplistic legislation to restrict the actions of major food corporations could ultimately have consequences that are the opposite of what was intended. Firstly, there is the likelihood that major advertisers of food to children will substitute alternative promotional techniques, which are less heavily regulated, for television advertising. The net effect would be further to reduce television advertising expenditure at a time when it is already in decline, but not necessarily to reduce the impact of food company promotional strategies. By legislating against one medium while leaving others, such as the Internet (including advergaming), SMS text messaging and door drop marketing untouched, one may alter the media mix employed by food marketing organisations without affecting sales patterns very much at all. Secondly, if one does succeed in reducing children‟s awareness of and hence demand for major, branded, unhealthy food products, there remains the possibility that this demand will be met by alternative suppliers of equally unhealthy foodstuffs. Even from the relatively small-scale empirical study that we report in this paper, we know that many British metropolitan children are exposed to a wide range of messages about unhealthy food products that have nothing to do with the major brands. Of course, one could argue that the fact that these are not the big television-advertised brands makes them less attractive to children, so that this substitution effect will only be small. This assertion would need to be tested empirically. Indeed, both of the „substitution effects‟ that we have described above merit investigation in the wake of the UK decision to restrict television advertising of certain food products to children. 9 References Ahmad, Shaheena (1997), "Time for a Twinkie Tax?," U.S. News & World Report, 123 (25), 62 - 63. Anonymous (2005), "McDonald's launches global health-education initiative.," Nation's Restaurant News, 39 (13), 65. ---- (2006), "Survey says Americans blame themselves for problems with obesity.," Nation's Restaurant News, 40 (16), 16. Bates, Kenneth W. and Kyle A. Huggins (2005), "M.E.A.L. TIME: How Nutritional Disclosure Affects Gender Evaluations of Fast Food Menu Items," in AMA Winter Educators¿ Conference Proceedings Vol. 16. Beckett, Fiona (2006), "Jamie Oliver. (Cover story)," in Director Vol. 59: Director Publications Ltd. Better Business Bureau (2006), "The Children's Advertising Review Unit: Self Regulatory Guidelines for Children's Advertising," Vol. 2007. Arlington VA. Brennan, Ross, Stephan. Dahl, Eagle Lynne., Olga. Mourouti, and Barbara Czarnecka (2008), "Regulation of Nutrition and Health Claims in Advertising," Journal of Advertising Research, 48 (2), forthcoming. Broadcasting Commission of Ireland (2004), "Children's Advertising Code." Dublin: Broadcasting Commission of Ireland. Chandon, Pierre and Brian Wansink (2007), "Is Obesity Caused by Calorie Underestimation? A Psychophysical Model of Meal Size Estimation.," Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 44 (1), 84-99. Committee of Advertising Practice (2007), "Food or Soft Drink Product Advertisements and Children," in CAP Codes, Committee of Advertising Practice (Ed.) Vol. 2007. London. Dahl, Stephan, Lynne Eagle, and Carlos Baez (2006), "Analyzing Advergames: Active Diversions or Actually Deception," in Middlesex University Business School Discussion Paper Series. London: Middlesex University Business School. Danner, Valerie and Thomas Molony (2002), "Obesity Eclipses Smoking, Alcohol in Health Care Costs," The Journal of Dental Hygiene, 76 (2), 111. Doonar, Joanne (2004), "Life in the fast lane.," Brand Strategy (186), 20-23. Garber, Amy (2005), "McD to wrap food in facts by printing nutritional data on most packaging.," Nation's Restaurant News, 39 (45), 1-20. 10 Grigorovici, Dan M. and C.D. Constantin (2004), "Experiencing Interactive Advertising Beyond Rich Media. Impacts of Ad Type and Presence on Brand Effectiveness in 3D Gaming Immersive Virtual Environments," Journal of Interactive Advertising, 4 (3), 1 - 26. Gunn, Eileen (2001), "Product Placement Prize," Advertising Age, 72 (7), 10. Hawkins, Jacinta C., Sandra L. Bulmer, Lawrence C. Rose, and Lynne Eagle (2006), "Schoolbased Health Communication: Exploring the Home-School Partnership," in Massey University, Department of Commerce Working Paper Series,. Auckland: Massey University. Hawkins, Jacinta C., Lynne C Eagle, and Sandra L. Bulmer (2004), "Cross-cultural Comparison of Food in the Children's Media Environment in New Zealand and Japan," in Corporate and Marketing Communications Conference, T.C. Melawar (Ed.). University of Warwick: University of Warwick. Homer, Charles and Lisa A. Simpson (2007), "Childhood Obesity: What's Health Care Policy Got To Do With It?," Health Affairs, 26 (2), 441-44. Institute of Practitioners of Advertising (2007), "IPA response to CAP's new restrictions on food and drink advertising to children," IPA (Ed.) Vol. 2007. London: IPA. Jacobson, Michael F. (2005), "High sodium content in restaurant foods poses major health risk to U.S. consumers.," in Nation's Restaurant News Vol. 39: Lebhar - Friedman Inc. Jeffery, Robert W. and Simone A. French (1998), "Epidemic obesity in the United States: Are fast foods and television viewing contributing?," American Journal of Public Health, 88 (2), 277-80. John, Deborah Roedder (1999), "Consumer Socialization of Children: A Retrospective Look at Twenty-Five Years of Research," Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (3), 183 - 213. Joppen, Lucien (2005), "Whetever it is, keep it simple.," Food Engineering & Ingredients, 30 (3), 30-32. Kaufman, Lois (1980), "Prime-Time Nutrition," Journal of Communications, 37-42. Kline, Kimberly (2006), "A Decade of Research on Health content int he Media: The Focus on Health Challenges and Sociocultural Context and Attendant Informational and Idoelogical Problems," Journal of Health Communication, 11 (1), 43 - 59. Kramer, Louise (2006), "Nestle: Restaurants can, and should, offer smaller portions.," in Nation's Restaurant News Vol. 40: Lebhar - Friedman Inc. 11 Levin, Irwin P., Judy Schreiber, Marco Lauriola, and Gary J. Gaeth (2002), "A Tale of Two Pizzas: Building Up from a Basic Product Versus Scaling Down from a Fully-Loaded Product.," Marketing Letters, 13 (4), 335-44. Livingstone, Sonia (2005), "Assessing the Research Base for the Policy Debate over the Effects of Food Advertising to Children," International Journal of Advertising, 24 (3), 273 - 96. ---- (2006), "Does TV advertising make children fat?," Public Policy Research, 13 (1), 54-61. McDonald's Restaurants (NZ) Ltd (2004), "2004 EFFIES Award Submission," in EFFIE Awards Case Studies, Communication Agencies' Association of New Zealand (Ed.) Vol. 2004. Auckland: Communication Agencies' Association of New Zealand. Mills, Lara (2001), "The fat of the land.," Marketing Magazine, 106 (13), 9. Moore, Elizabeth S. (2004), "Children and the Changing World of Advertising," Journal of Business Ethics, 52 (2), 161 -67. Morland, Kimberly, Steve Wing, and Ana Diez Roux (2002), "The Contextual Effect of the Local Food Environment on Residents' Diets: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study.," American Journal of Public Health, 92 (11), 1761-67. Moses, Louis J. and Dare A. Baldwin (2005), "What Can the Study of Cognitive Development Reveal About Childrens' Ability to Appreciate and Cope with Advertising?," Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 24 (2), 186 - 201. Neeley, Sabrina M and David W. Schumann (2004), "Using Animated Spokes-Characters in Advertising to Young Children," Journal of Advertising, 33 (3), 7 - 23. Neeley, Sabrina M. and Brianne Petricone (2006), "Children's (Mis)understanding of Nutritional Information on Product Packages: Seeking Ways to Help Kids Make Healthier Food Choices.," Advances in Consumer Research, 33 (1), 556-57. Newspaper Marketing Agency (2006), "Facts & Figures," Vol. 2006. London: Newspaper Marketing Agency. OFCOM (2006), "New Restrictions on the Television Advertising of Food and Drink Products to Children," Vol. 2006. London: Office of Communication. Primack, BA (2004), "Counselling Patients on Mass Media and Health," American Family Physician, 69 (11), 2545 - 54. Ritson, Mark and Richard Elliott (1999), "The Social Uses of Advertising: An Ethnographic Study of Adolescent Advertsiign Audiences," Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (3), 260 - 77. 12 Royal Society of Medicine (2004), "Ban on Food Advertising 'Would not impact obesity rates in children'," Vol. 2006. London: Royal Society of Medicine. Shrum, L.J. Ed. (2004), The Psychology of Entertainment Media. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Stewart, David W. and Ingrid M. Martin (1994), "Intended and Unintended Consequences of Warning Messages: A Review and Synthesis of Empirical Research," Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 13 (1), 1 - 19. Weightlossforall.com (2007), "Pizza Calories," Vol. 2007. Birmingham. Weightlossresources (2007), "Calories in Fast Food," Vol. 2007. Peterborough: Weightlossresources.com. Which? Magazine (2006), "Junk food ad ban is 'public health fudge'," Which? Magazine (Ed.) Vol. 2007. London: Which? 13 Table 1 Summary of Types and Number of Leaflets Received (includes multiple deliveries by some organisations) Month Type of Food Promoted Indian Chinese Pizza McDonald‟s Potentially Healthy Options December 2006 1 1 5 1 January 2007 2 1 1 February 2007 9 1 March 2007 2 6 Total (30) 1 3 22 1 3 (3%) (10%) (74%) (3%) (10%) 14 Table 2 “Healthy” leaflets Advertiser Focus of leaflet Healthy Options M &S Simply Food Waitrose Traffic Light System Everybody Organic (home delivery) Announcing opening of redesigned Simply Food outlet, giving location and opening times Small card explaining how to use food nutritional information “traffic light” system Leaflet describing home delivery service “delivers the finest organic fruit, vegetables, meat and groceries direct to your door”, with the additional claim that “everybody knows organics is better”. No specific products featured 15 Table 3 Summary of Special Deals, Health Information and Potentially Healthy Menu Options Contained in Home Delivered Leaflets: Major Chain Fast Food, Indian and Chinese Food type Example of special deals offered Health information /options Nutritional Salads Salads on Other and content info included as normal drinks advertiser Major Chain Fast Food McDonald‟s “feel good inside” Includes more than £18 of savings (15 coupon meal deals) Indian Kiplings 10% discount on orders over £10; free Tandoori & bottle of Coke (1.5 litre) on orders over Balti £20 Restaurant Chinese FuDo 10% discount on orders over £10; free prawn crackers or can of coke with Chinese meal over £11 Jun Peking No takeaway specials; In-restaurant special: Eat as much as you like £13.50 per head, children half price (2 x deliveries of same material in March) 16 options with special deals menu available in addition to soft drinks None No Carrot sticks and fruit bags Milkshakes and coffee None No No No drinks listed None No No No drinks listed None No No Mineral water Table 4 Summary of Special Deals, Health Information Home Delivered Leaflets: Pizza Outlets Type / Example of special deals offered Pizza (advertiser listed below) and Potentially Healthy Menu Options Contained in Health information /options Nutritional content info Salads included as options with special deals Salads normal menu Family fare £12.60: 1 x any 13” pizza None 1 4 4 pieces garlic bread, 1 x 1.5 litre soft drink 6 pieces chicken wings or salad (2 separate deliveries December) Pizza GoGo Any large pizza, 8 pieces spicy wings None No 3 4 pieces garlic bread, 1.5 litre soft drink £9.95 (different offers in December and March leaflets) Pizzas „R‟ Any three medium pizzas £15.90 None No 3 Us Flame 1 portion chips with any 9” pizza £4.99 None No 1 Pizza & (£4.95 without chips), 2 portions chips with Kebab any 12” pizza £8.50 (£8.05 without chips), etc (same leaflet delivered December and twice in February) Pizza Hi Buy one, get one free (and 11 additional None No 3 deals) Dominos “Huge savings inside. 24 price-slicing None No No Pizzas vouchers” (9 buy one get one free offers, plus other deals) It‟s Pizza 2 x 7” small pizzas for £6.99 (3 other price None No 2 Time off deals) (leaflet delivered February then twice in March – slightly different colours but same content) Four in One Any extra large – 2 cans of coke and 1 x None No 2 garlic bread pizza free (2 other similar offers) Bella Pizza Buy one get one free None No No (same leaflet delivered February and March) Chicken „n‟ Buy one get one free None No 2 Pizza City Pizza Hut 8 special offers None No No e.g. 1 large Indian pizza, spicy wedges and Bombay wings £13.99 Pukka 11 special offers None No No Pizza e.g. Buy one get one free Pizzaria Free bottle of wine on orders over £20, 2 None No 1 on orders over £30 Chopaan Buy any Pizza and get the second one for None No 1 Pizza & £1.00 (9 other special meal deals) Kebab TGF Pizza 17 on Other drinks available in addition to soft drinks No No Mineral water Mineral water Mineral water No No No No No No No No Water Table 5 Comparison – indicative calories in range of fast foods (Weightlossforall.com 2007; Weightlossresources 2007) Food Type Calories Food Type Calories Big Mac, McDonald‟s 492 Cheese & tomato pizza / 780 Hamburger, McDonald‟s 254 Margherita pizza Beef in Black Bean Sauce 386g 432 Four seasons pizza 900 serving Chicken and Cashew Nuts 350g 311 Mushroom Pizza 690 serving Tandoori Chicken 300 Pepperoni, cheese & tomato 1040 Rogan Josh 700 Chicken Korma 870 18 Table 6 Comparison of McDonald‟s Children‟s Happy Meal with Range of Other Children‟s Meal Options. (McDonald's Restaurants (NZ) Ltd 2004) Calories Calories Lunch option Lunch option Mince pie / afghan biscuit / popularbrand orange & apple juice (apple based) (453g) 944 * McDonald‟s Chicken McNuggets(tm) Happy 460 Meal served with small fries & small soft drink (377g) Ham roll (buttered) / slice of banana cake / popular-brand blackcurrant cordial (426g) 610 McDonald‟s Hamburger Happy Meal served with 396 small salad & small orange juice (423g) McDonald‟s Hamburger Happy Meal(tm) served with small fries & small orange juice (438g) 602 Popular-brand yeast spread sandwich (buttered) / 339 chips / apple (213g) Peanut Butter sandwich (buttered) / banana / milk (460g) 536 McDonald‟s Chicken McNuggets Happy Meal 240 served with small salad & small orange juice (318g) * Chicken McNuggets Happy Meal is the most popular McDonald‟s children's meal. 19 Table 7: Fast food outlets, grocery stores and restaurants close to local schools Outlet type Fish and chip shop Pizzerias Chicken takeaways Indian takeaway / restaurant Chinese takeaway / restaurant Small cafes / restaurants Full service restaurants Bread / bakery / delicatessen Food stores selling fruit and vegetables Foods stores not selling fruit and vegetables 20 Number 1 2 2 1 1 4 4 1 4 1