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?
8/13/2019 HalfordBoyland TV Advertising Effects Copenhagen
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?
8/13/2019 HalfordBoyland TV Advertising Effects Copenhagen
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.
TV FOOD ADVERTISING TO CHILDREN
What foods are being advertised?
8/13/2019 HalfordBoyland TV Advertising Effects Copenhagen
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
8/13/2019 HalfordBoyland TV Advertising Effects Copenhagen
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.
8/13/2019 HalfordBoyland TV Advertising Effects Copenhagen
6/17
Proportion of ads for food
Types of foods advertised
8/13/2019 HalfordBoyland TV Advertising Effects Copenhagen
7/17
Categories of foods advertised*** ***
***
*** p < 0.001
Examples of inter-channel variationITV Cartoon Network
Sky Sports One Nickelodeon
8/13/2019 HalfordBoyland TV Advertising Effects Copenhagen
8/17
Differences between peak and non-peak
childrens viewing periods
***
*** p < 0.001
Persuasive appeals used in food advertsaimed at children
8/13/2019 HalfordBoyland TV Advertising Effects Copenhagen
9/17
TV FOOD ADVERTISING TO CHILDREN
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.
8/13/2019 HalfordBoyland TV Advertising Effects Copenhagen
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)
8/13/2019 HalfordBoyland TV Advertising Effects Copenhagen
11/17
TV FOOD ADVERTISING TO CHILDREN
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
8/13/2019 HalfordBoyland TV Advertising Effects Copenhagen
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
8/13/2019 HalfordBoyland TV Advertising Effects Copenhagen
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
8/13/2019 HalfordBoyland TV Advertising Effects Copenhagen
14/17
Exposure to either the advert or the celebrity endorserexaggerated brand choice
Significant main effect of crisp brand (p
8/13/2019 HalfordBoyland TV Advertising Effects Copenhagen
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.
8/13/2019 HalfordBoyland TV Advertising Effects Copenhagen
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
8/13/2019 HalfordBoyland TV Advertising Effects Copenhagen
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/