June 02, 2005

The Food Fight Continues

Over the past few months I have been dedicating a lot of time to speaking about the advertising policies surrounding childhood obesity. It is an extremely important issue for the ANA and the advertising industry overall, and we continue to reach out and provide insight on the real facts of this problem.

Recently I spoke at the Second National Forum on Obesity Policy, Regulation and Litigation in Chicago. As I recapped the events of the past few months, I was reminded that we still have a long way to go in communicating all of the efforts that the advertising industry is making to combat childhood obesity.

From our industry’s self-regulatory system, the Children’s Advertising Review Unit (CARU), which monitors the advertisements that potentially take advantage of a child’s credulity, to the Ad Council’s “Small Steps” program, which strives to educate the public with numerous methods and examples of how to combat obesity, we are actively working to do our part.

But what concerns me most is that despite all of this positive and progressive action, the advertising industry continues to be targeted as a leading contributor of this epidemic.

I wanted to point to some articles from just last week that demonstrate the challenges we face as an industry:

*Aiming at kids: Pressure builds on foodmakers, Star Tribune

*Snack foods sweet on adults: Childhood obesity forces marketing twist; firms insisting products are for grown-ups, Fort Wayne Journal Gazette

*Empire of nutritionists strikes back at childhood obesity, Boston Herald

What is even more frustrating is that there is an ever-growing body of evidence that demonstrates that advertising is not a major factor in the obesity challenge that we increasingly face around the world. In Sweden and Quebec, for example, they banned all advertising to children, including food advertising,  yet their obesity rates are not lower than many societies that have no such restrictions and substantial rates of food advertising. Also, in the United States where food and restaurant advertising is relatively uniform throughout the nation, there are wide variations in obesity rates from locality to locality, even in closely contiguous areas. This type of substantial variation would not be expected if advertising were a major engine generating this problem.

In fact, recent data provided by Nielsen Media Research, Inc. and Nielsen//NetRatings and analyzed by Georgetown Economic Services, LLC for the Association of National Advertisers (ANA) and the Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA) found that during the past 10 years, food, beverage and restaurant television advertising expenditures, as well as the number of food, beverage and restaurant ads seen by children under age 12, have declined. This decline took place during the very period cited as the time during which obesity rates grew the most and at the fastest rates. The number of food and restaurant commercials seen annually by children 12 and under, for example, peaked at nearly 6,000 in 1994 but declined by over 13% over the next 10 years. Adjusting for inflation, in order to hold the value of dollars constant over the same time period, TV ads for foods and restaurants reached nearly $6 billion in 1994, but dropped below $5 billion in 2004.

The new data, in addition, examined the exposure of children to messages from food and restaurant companies in the online environment and found that they continue to be miniscule in comparison to the ads on broadcast and cable.

As noted earlier, the advertising community is committed to helping combat obesity through public service advertising and the rapidly accelerating development and advertising of new and improved food, beverage and restaurant items that are lower in fat and calories. Our community, however, needs to strongly oppose efforts to restrict food and restaurant advertising that will take us down regulatory and legislative blind alleys under the guise of obesity prevention.

March 30, 2005

Food Advertising to Children an Increasingly Weighty Issue in Washington

Concern over food, beverage and restaurant advertising in general, and to children in particular, is certainly not losing strength on Capitol Hill or in the media. The issue has continued to grow since the beginning of the year. Here are some highlights from the past few months:

* At a January press conference, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) called for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to devise strict food guidelines based on a good food/bad food dichotomy. CSPI then called on the Federal Trade Commission to use the guidelines to restrict or ban ads for so-called “bad foods” directed to children 18 and under.

* Earlier this month, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), in a conference sponsored by the Kaiser Family Foundation, argued that excessive violence and sexual content in various media and entertainment are creating a “silent epidemic” that threatens the health and emotional well being of America’s children. The Foundation recently released a new study on children’s media use. Senator Clinton also commented on the impact of food advertising on obesity and announced reintroduction of legislation to examine the impact of media on children’s mental development. Senator Clinton was joined by Senators Joe Lieberman (D-CT), Rick Santorum (R-PA), Sam Brownback (R-KS), Richard Durbin (D-IL), John Ensign (R-NV) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA). One of the mandated pilot studies in the legislation would examine children’s media use and its effects on obesity.

* Also this month, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) announced plans to reintroduce his legislation to grant the FTC “unfairness” rule-making authority in the children’s advertising area. Senator Harkin also announced plans to introduce legislation to ban “junk food” ads in schools.

* Finally, Federal Trade Commission Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras announced a two-day workshop in Washington to be sponsored by the FTC and the Department of Health and Human Services to examine self-regulation in the food, beverage and restaurant industry.

Obviously, food, beverage and restaurant advertising, especially to children, is continuing to come under increased scrutiny. The ANA fully agrees that children deserve special protection from inappropriate content, and has been a major supporter of the Children’s Advertising Review Unit (CARU) to assure strong self-regulation in regard to children’s advertising. The obesity problem, however, is the result of multiple forces in American society, and singling out advertising for blame will not solve it.

In fact, leading marketers are responding to consumer concerns with a vast array of new and healthier product formulations, including low-fat and low-calorie varieties. Advertising is vital to get the message out to consumers about these products.

ANA has been active on other fronts. Our CEO, Bob Liodice, sits on the boards of both the National Advertising Review Council and the Ad Council. The Ad Council has a number of public service campaigns aimed at promoting good nutrition and increased physical activity, including the “Small Step” campaign in conjunction with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

In reaction to the CSPI’s call for new food guidelines in January, we responded strongly with a detailed op-ed in AdAge. In Washington, we have created the Alliance for American Advertising (AAA), with a number of trade association and individual companies, which seeks to inform policymakers of our industry’s commitment to responsible advertising. We also have been involved in the American Council for Fitness and Nutrition (ACFN) which promotes physical activity and better nutrition.

Fighting unreasonable restrictions on food advertising is an ongoing effort -- one that requires enthusiastic support from the entire marketing community. Look for the ANA and other leading organizations to challenge erroneous claims and to provide the facts necessary so that marketers can continue to meet consumer demands effectively in the marketplace.

November 09, 2004

The Election's Impact on Marketers

Last week, George W. Bush was re-elected to a second term as president and many marketers are asking what the next four years will bring and what issues will impact our industry. The strengthened Republican majority and the President’s strong opposition to new taxes likely will reduce the threat of across-the-board advertising taxes at the federal level at this time. However, the president in his election victory speech and his first press conference after the vote has already signaled that he is contemplating a major review and possible overhaul of the existing income tax code that may significantly affect our community.  In addition, many advertising issues do not break down along partisan lines, so several issues of concern to the advertising community will remain in play next year in the 109th Congress.

We remain poised to address these key topics so that our core marketing industry initiatives remain intact.  Several controversial marketing issues remaining in serious play in the new Congress include: prescription drug advertising, the values agenda and food and children’s marketing.

Prescription Drug Advertising

The scrutiny on prescription drug advertising will continue despite the defeat of Senators John Kerry and John Edwards.  A number of Republicans support re-importation of prescription drugs from Canada.  Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has proposed restrictions on DTC advertising if a company takes any steps to impede re-importation.  The Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Congressman Bill Thomas (R-CA) also has called for restrictions on DTC advertising deductibility in the past.  Several Democrats in both the House and Senate are likely to reintroduce their proposals to limit or deny the tax deduction for DTC advertising.

Values Agenda

Exit polls showed that one in five of the voters surveyed listed “moral issues” as their number one concern, ranking above terrorism, the economy or the war in Iraq.  Some specifically mentioned the Janet Jackson Super Bowl scandal and concerns about the content of television programming, movies, video games and commercials.  Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Congressman Fred Upton (R-OH) are likely to continue to push their legislation to crack down on indecency in the media.  The FCC already has stepped up its regulatory focus on media content.  The FCC also has an ongoing regulatory review of violence in the media and has been directed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee to provide a report by January 1, 2005.

Food and Children’s Marketing

We also expect a continued spotlight on food marketing and children’s marketing.  In a clear example of how politics makes strange bedfellows, two of the Senate’s most conservative members (Republican Senators Sam Brownback of Kansas and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania) have joined with two of the most liberal members (Democratic Senators Hillary Clinton of New York and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut) to support funding for research on the impact of marketing and media on child development.  We expect Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Ted Kennedy (D-MA) to reintroduce their legislation to impose new restrictions on food marketing and children’s marketing. Another topic of interest is the possible Supreme Court turnover. It is also likely that the President will have the opportunity to appoint new members to the Court in his second term. The First Amendment protection for commercial speech is the ultimate safety net for all marketers.  Many of the more recent commercial speech cases have been decided on narrow votes in the Supreme Court. 

Demonstrating the values of advertising to consumers and policy makers must be a part of the marketers’ job description. The ANA will continue to challenge or support the decisions that our policymakers are putting forward that impact our industry with the knowledge that advertising truly is the engine of the economy that provides the choices that make a free market a critical component of a free society.

My Photo