Marketing Food to Children and Adolescents - Federal Trade ...

Marketing Food to Children and Adolescents
81. The information described in this section was derived from market research related to children and adolescents
that was submitted by the 44 companies. The results are described in a general way because they show
the parameters of this kind of research and illustrate some important findings. The Commission has made no
effort to assess the competence and reliability of this research.
82. According to one company’s research, television is still the strongest source of ad awareness for all brands.
83. Typically, such research focused on teenagers and young adults in their early twenties, and audience reactions
were measured separately by gender and race or ethnic identity.
84. Research submitted by one company found that licensed characters are particularly appealing to children
from pre-school age to eight or nine years-old, at which point children will request fewer foods based solely
on the licensed character.
85. The frequency of exposure to the promotional message connecting the brand to the contest is paramount in
increasing brand awareness.
86. One company’s survey indicated that boys tend to prefer electronic devices, while girls tend to prefer trips.
Some research showed that children prefer cash to merchandise. Older children are aware of the low probability
of winning a sweepstakes, but are nonetheless intrigued by grand prizes.
87. A few companies noted, however, their participation in programs that serve low-income populations, such
as state WIC programs that provide supplemental food and nutrition education to low-income pregnant and
postpartum women, infants, and young children.
88. 2006 Report at 54.
89. See generally id. at 11-20, 22-23.
90. Id. at 20-21. Prior to 2006, fewer than half of the companies that responded to the Special Order for this
Report had any policies in place pertaining to food advertising and promotional activities targeted to children
or adolescents. In some cases, this appears to be because the companies did not, as a general practice, direct
their marketing activities toward children and teens.
The policies that were in place ranged from specific guidelines regarding ad placement and content – such
as prohibiting advertising directed to children under 6 or 8, or limiting the types of products that could be
advertised to children to products meeting certain nutrient criteria – to general commitments to follow selfregulatory
advertising principles. For example, a number of companies indicated that they participated in
the self-regulatory program administered by the CARU and adhered to CARU’s guidelines for advertising to
children. A few companies also stated that they “pre-screened” some of their advertisements – including television
and website ads – through CARU prior to disseminating them.
Some companies also had their own guidelines for the content of child-directed ads, which required, for
example, that such ads accurately portray serving sizes, not encourage the “nag” or “pester” factor, always
portray children under 12 in the presence of a caregiver, and not undermine parental authority, among other
things.
91. These recommendations are set forth on pages 48-54 of the 2006 Report. See supra note 8.
92. 2006 Report at 53.
93. Many of these developments were discussed at the July 18, 2007 Forum on Marketing, Self-Regulation &
Childhood Obesity, hosted by the FTC and HHS (2007 Forum). The agenda and transcript of proceedings
(2007 Forum Transcript) are available at www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/childobesity/index.shtml.
94. See Council of Better Business Bureaus, About the Initiative, http://us.bbb.org/WWWRoot/SitePage.
aspx?site=113&id=b712b7a7-fcd5-479c-af49-8649107a4b02 (last visited July 10, 2008).
90