Download Beyond Advertising: In-home Promotion of `Fast Food`

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