How and why do fast food and junk food companies target children, despite commonly known health risks and the ever increasing issue of childhood obesity?
Current statistics show that in the UK, around 30% of 2 to 15 year olds are classed as either overweight or obese. ’The World Health Organisation (WHO) regards childhood obesity as one of the most serious global public health challenges for the 21st century.’ (REF) It’s widely known that obese children have a higher chance of developing serious health problems related directly to their weight, such as type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disorders, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and high blood pressure to mention a few. They are also more likely to grow up to be obese adults with a greater chance of early death. As a result of the growing rate of these highly alarming figures and increasing concerns regarding the health and well-being of future generations, regulations are being brought into place in order to help reduce fast food and junk food advertising during children’s television programs, and people are beginning to demand change. Despite this, a great deal of fast food and junk food companies continue to target their products toward children through other means. This essay aims to explore how they do this, and the reasons why.
The food industry has been marketing a vast range of unhealthy products towards children for decades in a number of different ways, which undoubtably has had an impact on the consumer choices that children and their families make. The incorporation of cartoon characters, bright colours, toys and novelty products as a means of marketing products with very little nutritional value strongly influences children’s choices and preferences. ‘A survey carried out by Which? survey found that two thirds of people think that companies should not be allowed to use cartoon characters to promote unhealthy foods to children’ (REF - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3116057/Cartoon-characters-promote-unhealthy-food-to-children.html) however, widely recognised characters like Tony the Tiger, which first featured in advertisements in 1952, are still used to this day as a way of attracting kids to the brand. Product placement and brand licensing play important roles in influencing preferences. But undoubtedly, the food industry has primarily been focusing its energy and billions of pounds through television advertising. May 2004, saw the introduction of the Children’s Food Bill to the House of Commons; the purpose of which was ‘to improve the health and well-being of children and to reduce ill-health of children.’ (REF - CHILDRENS FOOD BILL) The Act outlined prohibitions to the advertising and marketing of junk food to children, as well as new guidelines for children’s education about food in schools. Later, in 2006 Ofcom announced a ban on television advertisements for junk food around the airing of programmes aimed specifically at under-sixteens. There is criticism regarding these actions from both sides of the argument; some saying that the ban is too extreme, whilst others worry that it is not stringent enough. Opinions formed within the food industry suggest that it is the responsibility of the parents alone to properly educate their children; others argued too, that parents should be the ones to avoid exposing their child to the television in the first place. The counter argument to this is that fast food and junk food companies have the kind of omni-present marketing that has become incredibly difficult to avoid. If it isn’t in your face, obviously pushing it’s promotions forward to the youth and the rest of the general public, it’s working behind the scenes, through sponsorship or partnership schemes. ‘It is well known that sponsorships that will lure in children consumers are the most profitable; therefore, it is no surprise to find Burger King signing a deal with Nickelodeon’ (REF http://susvalleypolicy.org/policynews.asp?aid=1068) Another example is the long and most well known partnership between McDonalds and Disney. In terms of something less appealing to children specifically, but all the more baffling: Unicef found itself under heavy fire after signing a partnership with fast food giant McDonald’s as a method of fundraising. The charity was accused of ‘compromising its mission to promote good nutrition by associating with the giant American corporation.’ (REF http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1124439/). Heavy criticism was based on the idea that Unicef had partnered with a company known for promoting low-nutrition foods contributing to poor health, which undermines the WHOs efforts to battle obesity, and the diseases associated with the epidemic. McDonald’s seems to have it’s greasy chip fat fingers in all of the pies, even the healthy ones. Therefore it seems to be incredibly difficult for children to avoid and for parents to regulate exposure to these kinds of brands. Even following the regulations put in place, it has grown apparent that the food companies aren’t marketing or advertising any less, but easily exploiting the loopholes in the regulations, by adapting how and where their marketing takes place.
The Childwise Monitor Report of 2016 shows that for the first time ever, children are now spending more time on the internet, than watching the television. Surveys resulted in figures that showed that on average, 5 to 16 year olds now spend 3 hours online, and 2.1 hours watching TV. (http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jan/26/children-time-online-watching-tv) Fast food and junk food companies aren’t blind to this huge increase in the time kids spend browsing the web. They have been offered an additional platform for marketing their products, of which they take full advantage. The term ‘advergame’ was coined as a portmanteau of ‘advertising’ and ‘gaming’, and is used to describe online games available on companies’ websites, social media sites or as downloadable apps, that are used as a way of advertising products, brands or companies. The concept is nothing new, as video games have been promoting brands and including imagery from sponsors for years. But now, these kinds of games are even more accessible as they’re free to play online and often can be played for hours on end. Examples include games featured on the websites of Chewits, Honey Nut Cheerios and M&Ms. McDonald’s created a special ‘branded farm’ on the popular social media game Farmville, which for a limited period of time allowed huge exposure for the fast food chain to millions of the games players all over the world. According to a report commissioned by the Family and Parenting Institute in 2012, these online marketing strategies demonstrate a huge negative impact as ‘…a wide range of recent research on children’s advergames has found that children as old as 15 do not necessarily recognise that advergames are adverts…’ it goes on to add ‘the brain processes advergames in a different way from traditional
advertising – ie on a subconscious, emotional level. The result of this is that [they] can change children’s behaviour without their conscious awareness.’ The question is therefore raised regarding how ethical this kind of advertising technique is, ‘…particularly in view of the fact that they appear to be widely used for food and drink products high in salt, sugar and fat.’ (REF http://www.bath.ac.uk/management/news_events/pdf/advergames-report-december2012.pdf) So the interactive promotion of the HSSF foods has been tailored even further toward children, on a platform that is harder for parents to control. The companies know that their target audience is potentially unaware of their subconscious bombardment, and take full advantage of growing trends in the digital age.
We have more evidence now than ever before that high salt, high sugar and high fat diets are causing harm to our bodies and resulting in numerous health issues, which are becoming prevalent in 30% of children in this country. So why are children such a target for fast food and junk food companies, when the rest of the world seems to be deeply disturbed by the ever growing obesity rates of the youth? The easy answer is money. But children specifically generate the most money for large corporations for a number of reasons. Firstly, advertising to a child means advertising to a parent, a grandparent, a guardian or a family. The fact that the child can’t drive him or herself to a fast food restaurant, or pay for the food on their own obviously results in a parent accompanying them, which means more customers. More customers means more money. In addition to this, it’s also a factor that families often make routines out of outings, shopping trips or restaurant visits. Making sure that the child has been won over by the brand could potentially lay down the family’s weekly shop, or monthly routine, creating a sense of loyalty for even more customers.
Secondly, but very important to the first point, pester power is a huge reason as to why children are targeted. Pester power is the way in which children are able to pressure their parents into buying them products ‘…the level [of which] can be overwhelming, and parents will frequently give in to the child’s demands.’ (REF THE ESSENCE OF CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR BOOK) According to Food MythBusters’ Anna Lappe in a TED Talks video, ‘75% of parents say they have [given into the nagging, and] bought a product for the first time because their child asked them for it.’ (REF YOUTUBE) This behaviour is provoked by the fact that children are constantly being tempted and influenced by the methods of marketing of junk food and fast food, although under UK Advertising codes, ‘…marketing communications…must not directly advise or ask children to buy or to ask their parents or other adults to make enquiries or purchases for them.’ (REF MARKETING CODES) These guidelines do say that advertisements must not ‘directly advise’, however for a young child who is easily impressionable, the likelihood of them pestering their parents for something they have seen advertised by their favourite cartoon character, surrounded by bright colours and happy looking children is probably just as high, if not higher than as if they were explicitly told to pressure their parents and nag them.
There has been a great deal of criticism of the fast food industry for creating brand loyalty in children at a very young age. It has been shown that brand loyalty can be formed in children as young as 18 months old. If a youngster can recognise a brand, create emotional attachments to characters and mascots, and experience the products of the company as a toddler, the theory is that they maintain these preferences as they age. ‘Hoping that nostalgic childhood memories of a brand will lead to a lifetime of purchases, companies now plan “cradle-to-grave” advertising strategies.’ (REF eric schlosser)
- expand
In conclusion, it is obviously not as simple as saying that advertising junk food and fast food to young children is the cause of obesity, although associations have been established. It is certainly implanting ideas, developing brand preferences and helping to mislead children through a general conflict of information. Children are perhaps told by parents and in schools not to eat high salt, sugar and fat foods, but at the same time bombarded with fun, bright, interactive advertisements and promotional marketing techniques that are thoroughly planned out to be as invasive and successful as possible. Although in the UK we have established some form of regulations for clamping down on television advertisements, advergames rest outside of the boundaries of regulation for a lot of parents as children are spending so much more time online, and the internet is so easily accessible. It seems unlikely that the food industry would back away from targeting and audience that brings them so much money and custom without putting up some kind of a fight. Missing out on capturing the loyalty of youngsters means a harder task of introducing brands to adults, who are less easily swayed and possibly more skeptical of a company’s products or intent. To summarise, as the former president of Toys R Us said "If you own this child at an early age... you can own this child for years to come.” (REF)
--------------------------------------------------
I attached a note when I submitted it because I know that it isn't finished and isn't to a high enough standard. But I really started struggling and felt like I lost my way. CoP just makes me feel so stupid and I constantly get stuck in the mind frame of feeling rubbish, not knowing what I'm trying to do and not knowing what is good enough.
After I submitted my essay, I read back over it and hated it and thought it was terrible. So...
NOTE TO SELF
- Avoid walk-through essay, being too descriptive.
- Be argumentative
- Keep the essay structured, don't just rant
- Don't just list stuff
- Make sure the placement of the quotes makes sense and backs up argument
- Reference everything right
I have a feeling I'm going to end up just scrapping this one completely and trying to start again...
No comments:
Post a Comment