HalfordBoyland TV Advertising Effects Copenhagen

8/13/2019 HalfordBoyland TV Advertising Effects Copenhagen

1/17

Television Food Advertising toChildren:

Effects on Eating Behaviour

Jason C.G. Halford & Emma J. Boyland

Biopsychology Research Group

Liverpool Obesity Research Network (LORN)

www.liv.ac.uk/obesity

WHAT IS FOOD ADVERTISING?


2/17

A food advertisement can be defined as...

...a commercial ad featuring a food, beverage, or nutritionalsupplement that is meant to be ingested directly or have its flavoursextracted by chewing (e.g. gum) (Abbatangelo-Gray et al., 2008).

...a part of branding activity, with a brand being defined as a name,term, sign, symbol, design, or a combination of these, that identifiesthe goods or services of one seller or group of sellers anddifferentiates them from those of the competition (Chang & Liu,2009).

...part of overall marketing activity which is dominated by televisionadvertising but also includes internet advertising and advergaming,programme and event sponsorship, mobile phone advertising, viraladvertising, and printed advertisements.

TV FOOD ADVERTISING TO CHILDREN

What is being spent?


3/17

Food advertising is a multi-million dollar

industry

For every US $1 the WHO spends on trying to improve thenutrition of the worlds population, US $500 is spent by thefood industry on promoting processed foods.

Big Spenders on TV Advertising in UK (2003)

Nielsen Media Research quoted in The Times (UK) Feb 7,2004.


What foods are being advertised?


4/17

Advertised foods are not consistent with

with dietary recommendations

Current picture extent and nature of foodadvertising on UK TV in 200814 most popular commercialchannels chosen:

ITV

Channel Four

Five

Nickelodeon

Cartoon Network

Jetix CiTV

4 Music (formerly The Hits)

Smash Hits

MTV

Sky One

Sky Sports 1

E4

Boomerang


5/17

Study Design For each channel:

One weekday and one weekend day every month

06:00 to 22:00 hours

Specified peak and non-peak childrens viewing times (BARB citedin Ofcom, 2003).

Each advert coded according to pre-defined criteria (Kelly et al.,2007):

Advert product type e.g. food/drink; clothing; financial

Each FOOD advert coded further:

Core foods e.g. bread; low sugar/high fibre breakfast cereals Non-core foods e.g. chocolate/confectionery; fast food

Miscellaneous e.g. tea/coffee; supermarkets

Use of a promotional character (brand equity/licensed character)

Categorising the foodsCore foods

Bread (inc. rice, pasta, noodles)

Low sugar and high fibre breakfastcereals

Fruit and fruit products (no added sugar)

Vegetables and vegetable products (noadded sugar)

Low fat/reduced fat milk, yoghurt,

cheese, meat and meat alternatives(not crumbed or battered)

Core foods combined (inc frozen mealsand sandwiches if less than 10g fatper serving)

Baby foods (excl. milk formulae)

Bottled water

Non-core foods

High sugar/low fibre breakfast cereals

Crumbed/battered meat and meatalternatives

Cakes and biscuits

Snack foods (e.g. crisps, cereal bars)

Fruit juice and fruit drinks, frozen/friedpotato products

Full cream milk, yoghurt, dairydesserts, cheese, ice cream,chocolate and confectionery

Fast food restaurants,

High sugar/fat/salt spreads

Sugar sweetened drinks and alcohol

Miscellaneous = vitamins and supplements, tea and coffee, supermarkets advertisingcore foods/non-core foods/non-specified e.g. for non food items or not clearly core or

non-core, baby and toddler milk formulae.


6/17

Proportion of ads for food

Types of foods advertised


7/17

Categories of foods advertised*** ***

***

*** p < 0.001

Examples of inter-channel variationITV Cartoon Network

Sky Sports One Nickelodeon


8/17

Differences between peak and non-peak

childrens viewing periods

***

*** p < 0.001

Persuasive appeals used in food advertsaimed at children


9/17


Evidence for a link with childhood obesity?

Levels of unhealthy food advertising

correlate with prevalence of overweight

Lobstein & Dibb, 2005

The prevalence ofoverweight amongschool-age children

correlatedsignificantly with thenumber of adverts forsweet or fatty foodsper 20 hours ofchildrens televisionbroadcast.


10/17

Zimmerman & Bell (2010)

Commercial viewing is a predictor of

childrens obesity

Model 1,a b (95%CI)

Model 2,b b (95%CI)

Model 3,c b (95%CI)

Television viewing in 1997, h/d

Commercial 0.11**(0.00, 0.21) 0.11**(0.00, 0.21) 0.10**(0.00, 0.21)

Noncommercial 0.03 (0.07, 0.14) 0.03 (0.08, 0.13) 0.04 (0.07, 0.14)

Television viewing in 2002, h/d

Commercial 0.06 (0.04, 0.16) 0.06 (0.04, 0.16) 0.06 (0.04, 0.17)

Noncommercial 0.00 (0.10, 0.11) 0.01 (0.10, 0.11) 0.00 (0.10, 0.11)

Physical activity in 1997, min/d

None (Ref)

130 0.06 (0.34, 0.22)

> 30 0.01 (0.21, 0.23)

Physical activity in 2002, min/d

None (Ref)130 0.19 (0.43, 0.05)

> 30 0.02 (0.18, 0.21)Eating in front of the television in2002 0.03 (0.04, 0.10)

Adjusted R2 0.07 0.07 0.07

Further evidence commercial TV viewing

and diet

Children & adolescents who watched the most TV were significantlymore likely to be higher consumers of foods most commonly advertisedon TV (Utter et al., 2006)

Childrens exposure to food advertising was significantly related totheir consumption of advertised brands and energy-dense product

categories (Buijzen et al., 2008)

1 in 7 up to 1 in 3 obese children in the US may not have been obese inthe absence of advertising of unhealthy foods on TV (Veerman et al.,2009)

Exposure to ads for healthy foods was positively associated withreported fruit & vegetable intake (Klepp et al., 2007)


11/17


Experimental studies

Our studies at the University of Liverpool food advertising and actual intake

Condition One

10 food adverts +cartoon

Condition Two

10 non-food adverts +cartoon

Advert recall/recognition test

Ad libitum Food Intake Measured

Height and weight measured at final visit

Low Fat High Fat Low Fat High Fat Low Energy

Savoury Savoury Sweet Sweet Density


12/17

Key findings: Halford et al., 2004 Appetite

All childrenincreased intake ofSW and HFSAV foodsafter food ads

OW and OB childrenrecognised more foodthan toy ads, andmore food ads thanNW children.

Recognition of foodads correlated withamount eaten afterthose ads.

Food advert exposureproduced a significantincrease in food intake in 5-7year old children.

No effects of weight statusbut +ve correlation betweenBMI s.d. score and amounteaten after food ads.

Recognition of food ads wasalso related to BMI.

Key findings:Halford, Boyland et al., 2007 Appetite

NW OW/OB

Non Food Ads Food ads


13/17

Key findings:

Halford, Boyland et al., 2008 Public HealthNutrition

Food advert exposureincreased intake in allchildren

However, the increasedwas greater in the obesechildren (155%) and theoverweight children (101%)than the NW children

(89%).

The effects on adverts and celebrity on the intakeof branded and unbranded crisp/chip potato snacks

Aim

To study the effects of exposureto:

1.toy advert,

2.general food advert,

3.celebrity endorsed brandedfood product ad (crisp)

4.clip of same celebrity in usual

non-advert context (match ofthe day football highlights)

on choice between brandedand unbranded product(actually the same crisps).

209 children, 9-14 y (mean11.11.3y). Between subjectsdesign.

Results

1. No overall difference in total intake betweenconditions. All children ate significantly moreof the branded crisps (36.1g v 18.7g;p


14/17

Exposure to either the advert or the celebrity endorserexaggerated brand choice

Significant main effect of crisp brand (p


15/17

Our studies at the University of Liverpool

effects on food preferences and choice Leeds Food Preference Measure (LFPM)

Adapted Food Preference Measure (AFPM)

Leeds Forced Choice Test (LFCT)

A B

A B

Key findings:Halford, Boyland et al., 2008 Int J PediatricObesity

Following FA exposure NW children chose more food items(both branded and unbranded) than after non-food adverts.

OW/OB children showed greater preference for branded foods

than the NW children per se, but did not increase the numberof items chosen after FA.

In OW/OB children only, there was a significant and positiverelationship between food ad recall and the total number offoods chosen in the food condition.


16/17

Further evidence for advertising effects on

food preference Children who had seen food adverts were more likely to choose

the advertised food product

Items advertised twice were chosen more often than itemsadvertised once (Borzekowski & Robinson, 2001)

Children preferred the taste of food and drink items if they thoughtthey were from McDonalds (Robinson et al., 2007)

Exposure to ad during cartoon was significantly associated withpreference for the advertised product (Chernin, 2008)

Key findings:Boyland et al., (in preparation) All children selected more non-branded and branded items after FA

compared to TA.

Non branded (LFPM) Branded (AFPM)

*** p < 0.001


17/17

No weight status differences

NW and OW/OB children did not differ in their food preferences inthe control (toy ad) condition.

NW and OW/OB children did not respond differently to foodadvertising exposure.

Significant differences found between high and low viewers

High TV viewers had a higher mean BMI SDS than the low TVviewers.

The food preferences of high TV viewers were more affected byfood ad exposure than low TV viewers.

In the FA condition, high TV viewing children selected a greaternumber of branded food items than: Non-branded items in the FA condition

Branded items in the TA condition

Branded items by low TV viewers in the TA condition.

Key findings: Boyland et al., (in prep.)

Thank you for your attention!

Acknowledgements

Dr Jo Harrold

Professor Tim Kirkham

LORN

http://www.liv.ac.uk/obesity/

HalfordBoyland TV Advertising Effects Copenhagen

Documents