Appetite 58 (2012) 658–664

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Appetite

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /appet

Research report

Persuasive techniques used in television advertisements to market foodsto UK children

Emma J. Boyland ⇑, Joanne A. Harrold, Tim C. Kirkham, Jason C.G. HalfordKissileff Laboratory for the Study of Human Ingestive Behaviour, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Liverpool, Eleanor Rathbone Building,Bedford Street South, Liverpool L69 7ZA, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 5 October 2011Received in revised form 15 November 2011Accepted 17 November 2011Available online 22 November 2011

Keywords:Persuasive techniquesFood advertsChildrenMarketingObesity

0195-6663/$ - see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd. Adoi:10.1016/j.appet.2011.11.017

⇑ Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: e.boyland@liverpool.ac.uk, e.boy

The aim of this study was to quantify the nature and extent of use of persuasive marketing techniques intelevision advertisements (adverts) to promote foods to children. Popular UK commercial televisionchannels broadcasting children’s/family viewing were recorded for 2 days (6 am–10 pm) every monthin 2008 and recordings were screened for adverts. Eighteen thousand eight hundred and eighty eightadverts were for food and these were coded for peak/non-peak children’s viewing time and representa-tion of core (healthy)/non-core (unhealthy)/miscellaneous foods. The analysis assessed use of persuasiveappeals, premium offers, promotional characters (brand equity and licensed characters), celebrityendorsers and website promotion in food adverts. Promotional characters, celebrity endorsers and pre-mium offers were used more frequently to promote non-core than core foods, even on dedicated chil-dren’s channels. Brand equity characters featured on a greater proportion of food adverts than licensedcharacters. A food brand website was promoted in a third of food adverts (websites are not covered bythe statutory regulation on food advertising). This extensive analysis of television adverts demonstratedthat the use of persuasive marketing techniques to promote unhealthy foods was extensive in broadcast-ing popular with children despite regulations. Further studies should incorporate an analysis of the con-tent of websites promoted during food adverts.

� 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

The use of persuasive techniques in television food advertisingis associated with greater attention and a greater likelihood ofgaining an emotional response from child viewers (Lewis & Hill,1998). Therefore the nature of food adverts is a crucial elementof their effectiveness (Lewis & Hill, 1998). Indeed, the World HealthOrganisation recommendations on the marketing of foods andnon-alcoholic beverages to children state that the content, designand execution of an advert is a key contributor to the power ofthe marketing message (WHO, 2010).

Understanding how advertisers market foods to children isessential in order to focus on beneficial outcomes, such as howto favourably influence dietary choices (Hastings et al., 2003). Yetthe nature of television food advertising (with regard to the useof persuasive techniques) is under researched, particularly outsideof the US (Furnham, Abramsky, & Gunter, 1997; Kelly et al., 2010;Lewis & Hill, 1998; Sixsmith & Furnham, 2010). Studies havetended to focus on analysing the nature of the product itself ratherthan the nature of the message promoting the product (Schor &Ford, 2007). Hastings et al. (2003) purport that the development

ll rights reserved.

land@liv.ac.uk (E.J. Boyland).

of promotional techniques by advertisers is becoming ever moresophisticated, with much now based on extensive market researchcarried out to discern children’s interests, motivations, values andbeliefs.

Marketing techniques such as promotional characters, celebrityendorsers, premium offers, persuasive appeals or other attributesof advertising such as the use of website promotion have previ-ously been identified in television food advertising (Gantz,Schwartz, Angelini, & Rideout, 2007). Brand recognition is thoughtto be enhanced in young children when cartoon or cartoon-relatedcharacters (e.g. Tony the Tiger or Ronald McDonald) are used inadvertising or on packaging (Connor, 2006). Characters are thoughtto add to the persuasiveness of an advert and as a result brandshave been criticised for using characters to manipulate children’sfood choices (Which?, 2005). Children who recognise characters,logos and slogans from adverts have been shown to be more likelyto select those products and brands (Batada & Borzekowski, 2008).The presence of promotional characters on packaging can influencechildren’s taste preferences and snack selection (Roberto, Baik,Harris, & Brownell, 2010) and can be effective at creating favour-able attitudes towards products and increasing sales, particularlywhen the characters are well established and recognisable (Callcott& Phillips, 1996; Garretson & Burton, 2005; Garretson & Niedrich,2004; IOM, 2005; Mizerski, 1995). Ülger (2009) found that both

E.J. Boyland et al. / Appetite 58 (2012) 658–664 659

children and adults liked these characters and showed trust and re-spect for them. Therefore character-based marketing is considereda good strategy, particularly when targeting younger children whorespond positively to, and bond with, age-appropriate characters(Hastings et al., 2003).

Celebrity endorsers (‘‘a famous person who uses public recogni-tion to recommend or co-present with a product in an advert’’(Lear, Runyan, & Whitaker, 2009, p. 308)) are another widely usedadvertising strategy. Such endorsers have been shown to increaserecall rates for marketing communications as well as positivelyimpacting upon consumers’ attitudes towards the brand andenhancing their purchase intentions (Erdogan, 1999). Celebritiesappearing in advertising are thought to enhance a products’ worthand increase sales for two reasons: (1) they heighten attention toadverts by virtue of the visual and aural cues associated withcelebrity endorsement, and (2) the credibility that celebrities havein their area of renown extends to the product/brand they areendorsing (Gantz et al., 2007).

Behavioural outcomes such as purchasing requests are alsothought to be modified by advertising techniques such as premiumoffers (Hastings et al., 2003). For example, McDonald’s HappyMeals have been purported to be one of the most successful mar-keting techniques in history, with the inclusion of a free toy as wellas frequent character licensing/movie tie-ins (Sahud, Binns,Meadow, & Tanz, 2006). There is some research evidence to sug-gest that early in cognitive development children are unable to dis-criminate between a premium offer and an advertised product,which has implications for the effects of adverts featuring suchoffers (Carruth, Skinner, Moran, & Coletta, 2000).

Furthermore, it has been found that children naturally focustheir attention on animation and visual effects, and that emotionalappeals distract children from other aspects of adverts such asnutritional disclaimers or product information (Wicks, Warren,Fosu, & Wicks, 2009). Lewis and Hill (1998) reported that food ad-verts during children’s airtime were significantly more likely to useanimation, a story format, humour and to contain emotional ap-peals (such as fun/happiness/mood alteration) compared to non-food adverts aimed at children or to adult-oriented food adverts.Furthermore, the authors suggested that because many overweightand obese young people experience low levels of self-esteem orconfidence, such individuals may be more vulnerable to the useof emotional appeals that suggest an opportunity for personalenhancement (Lewis & Hill, 1998).

Finally, it is believed that advertisers are increasingly using theinternet to persuade users of the positive attributes and value oftheir product. Including the web address on a television advert isone way of promoting a website (Gantz et al., 2007). It has beennoted that in the US the majority of food brands that are heavilyadvertised to children on television are also promoted to themthrough food marketers’ websites, so it is likely that website pro-motion during television food adverts will grow as the internet be-comes increasingly more established as a platform for commercialfood marketing (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2006; Moore & Rideout,2007). No previous studies have examined this phenomenon in UKtelevision food advertising. However, in the US, one study foundthat 20% of food adverts aimed at children and adolescents pushedtheir website during the advert, including 59% of adverts for dine-in and delivery restaurants and 46% of prepared food adverts (e.g.for soups, pasta products, sandwich spreads, etc.) targeted at thisage group (Gantz et al., 2007). Once young people visit the site, evi-dence suggests that many food and beverage websites then directadvertising techniques at children and adolescents includingencouraging ‘advergaming’ – a game in which the advertised prod-uct is part of the game (Weber, Story, & Harnack, 2006). Brandimmersion is a key objective of these websites (Moore & Rideout,2007). Very limited data exist regarding the effects of internet food

advertising exposure on food-related behaviours, however,Pempek and Calvert (2009) were able to demonstrate that childrenwho played an advergame featuring healthier products selectedand consumed significantly more healthy snacks than those whoplayed a less healthy version of the same advergame.

Concerns over the effects of television food advertising onchildren led the UK broadcast regulator, the Office of Communica-tions (Ofcom), to introduce statutory legislation in phases from2007 with the aim of limiting ‘‘the exposure of children to HFSS(foods high in fat/sugar and/or salt) advertising, as a means ofreducing opportunities to persuade children to demand and con-sume HFSS products’’ (Ofcom, 2008, p. 1). The introduction of reg-ulations differed between dedicated children’s channels and otherchannels. For all channels other than dedicated children’s channelsthis legislation came into force in two phases; Phase (1) with effectfrom 1st April 2007, HFSS adverts were not permitted in or aroundprogrammes made for children or that were likely to be of partic-ular appeal to children aged 4–9 years, and Phase (2) with effectfrom 1st January 2008, HFSS adverts were not permitted in oraround programmes likely to be of particular appeal to childrenaged4–15 years (Ofcom, 2007). For dedicated children’s channels, dur-ing Phase 1 they were required to scale back all HFSS advertisingto 75% of 2005 levels (in terms of minutage devoted to such adver-tising), and during Phase 2 this was extended to 50% of 2005 levels.Total removal of all HFSS advertising from dedicated children’schannels was enforced from 1st January 2009 (Ofcom, 2007).

Revised content rules were also applied to all food and drinkadvertising to children regardless of scheduling times. In brief,the rules stated that adverts must not: encourage poor nutritionalhabits or an unhealthy lifestyle, encourage children to make pur-chase requests, condone or encourage excessive consumption, dis-parage good dietary practice, condone or encourage damaging oralhealth practices, and that adverts must be accurate with regards tonutrition/health claims (Ofcom, 2007). It was also stressed thatpromotional offers should not be targeted directly at pre-schoolor primary school children, and that adverts should not encouragechildren to consume a product purely to take advantage of a pro-motional offer, nor should excessive purchase or consumption(e.g. in order to complete a set of collectable items) be encouraged(Ofcom, 2007).

Regarding the use of characters and celebrity endorsement, thecontent rules stated that licensed characters (‘‘those charactersthat are borrowed equities and have no historical association withthe product’’ (Ofcom, 2007, p. 48)) and celebrities popular withchildren may not be used in HFSS adverts targeted directly atpre-school or primary school children. Despite the research evi-dence to suggest that brand equity characters have an influenceover product liking and purchase behaviour (Garretson & Burton,2005; IOM, 2005; Mizerski, 1995), the prohibition does not applyto these characters, defined as ‘‘those that have been created bythe advertiser and have no separate identity outside their associ-ated product or brand’’ (Ofcom, 2007, p. 48). Interestingly, regula-tions still permit the use of celebrities ‘of general appeal’(appealing to all age groups) (Hastings et al., 2003) even thoughthere is evidence to suggest that celebrity endorsements are effec-tive at increasing preference for the product being promoted (Rosset al., 1984).

Despite the proliferation of marketing techniques used in non-broadcast media, television advertising still remains a central plat-form for the establishment and promotion of brands and products.The current study addressed the gap in the literature relating to thenature of food advertising by examining the use of persuasive ap-peals, premium offers, promotional characters (both brand equitycharacters and licensed characters), celebrity endorsers andwebsite promotion in food adverts on the UK television channels

660 E.J. Boyland et al. / Appetite 58 (2012) 658–664

popular with children and young people. Analyses were conductedacross product types (healthy versus unhealthy) and across popu-lar children’s viewing times compared to periods with low num-bers of child viewers.

Methods

This study did not involve human participants and therefore noethical approval was required.

Television sampling

Recordings were made on one weekday (Tuesday or Thursday)and one weekend day (Saturday or Sunday) every month betweenJanuary and December 2008. Weekdays and weekend days werealternated each month for each channel (e.g. for ITV, January’srecordings covered a Tuesday and a Saturday, and February’srecordings covered a Thursday and a Sunday). Television was re-corded from 06:00 to 22:00 h on test days, based on previous workby Chapman, Nicholas, and Supramaniam (2006).

Television was recorded from 14 commercial stations broad-casting in the UK during 2008. These were ITV1, Channel Four,Channel Five, Sky1 and E4 (family channels); Nickelodeon, CartoonNetwork, Boomerang, Jetix, and CiTV (dedicated children’s chan-nels); Sky Sports 1 (sports channel); 4Music, Smash Hits, andMTV (music channels). Channels were selected on the basis of theirpopularity with young people, specifically those with the greatestviewing shares for children aged 4–15 years (Thickett, 2007) andthose appearing in the top five of channels watched in the previousweek by a study of 5–16 year olds in 2006 (Childwise, 2007). Threechannels were excluded from the study: BBC1 and BBC2 (non-commercial channels) and the Disney channel. The latter doesnot broadcast traditional food advertising, allowing only televisionprogramme sponsorship (Gantz et al., 2007), whereby the pro-gramme has some or all of its costs met by a sponsor with a viewto promoting their product/service.

At the time this study took place, the regulations stated thatdedicated children’s channels were required to scale back all HFSSadvertising to 50% of 2005 levels and on all other channels HFSSadverts were not permitted in or around programmes likely to beof particular appeal to children aged 4–15 years (Ofcom, 2007).

Coding

Recorded television was scanned for advertising content, thatcontent was then coded according to predefined criteria fromKelly, Smith, King, Flood, and Bauman (2007), Kelly et al. (2010)and Gantz et al. (2007). All coding was carried out by a singleresearcher (EB). Coding categories included channel type (e.g.sports, children’s, family, or music) on which the advert wasshown, the month of broadcast, the product advertised (e.g. food/drink and clothing), and the time of day in which the advert wasshown (peak or non-peak children’s viewing times; defined be-low). All food or drink items were each assigned to one of threegroups: core, non-core and miscellaneous items. Core food itemswere those foods/drinks that are required daily to meet nutrientrequirements (such as bread, pasta and fruit and vegetables);non-core items were those foods/drinks that provide nutrientsand/or energy in excess of daily requirements (such as fast foodand high sugar/low fibre breakfast cereals), and all other itemswere classified as miscellaneous (e.g. tea/coffee and vitamin sup-plements) (Kelly, Smith, King, Flood, & Bauman, 2007; Kellyet al., 2010).

The use of persuasive marketing techniques in food and bever-age adverts was also recorded. This included the use of promo-

tional characters (licensed characters or brand equity characters),and celebrity endorsers. Each food advert was also coded for theprimary persuasive appeal used (fun, taste and price), the use ofpremium offers (such as giveaways, competitions, contests andvouchers) and the appearance or mention of a website address(Gantz et al., 2007; Kelly et al., 2010). If more than one persuasiveappeal was used the most dominant appeal was coded. In the eventthat this was not clear, the appeal featuring first was used. Theprimary target of each advert was also assessed as one of 3categories; children, teenagers and adults, and ‘all ages’ (Gantzet al., 2007). Decisions were based on the general direction andcontent of the advert, including considerations of the channel itwas broadcast on, the age of the actors in the advert, and the com-plexity of the dialogue or ‘plot’.

Children’s viewing hours

Peak children’s viewing times were defined as those times ofthe day when greater than 25% of the potential child audience werelikely to be watching, determined from Ofcom data to be 17:30–22:00 h on weekdays and 19:00–21:00 h on weekend days (Ofcom,2004). Other viewing times were designated ‘non-peak’.

Statistical analysis

These data did not adhere to the assumptions for parametricdata (normality of distribution), therefore non-parametric analyseswere performed. Friedman’s ANOVA was used for related-sample(e.g. within channel) comparisons, with subsequent WilcoxonSigned Rank tests to follow up significant findings. For indepen-dent-sample (e.g. between channels) comparisons, Kruskal–Wallistests were used with subsequent Mann–Whitney U tests to followup significant findings. All comparisons were two-tailed and signif-icance was taken at p < 0.05 (with Bonferroni adjustments for mul-tiple comparisons).

Results

The total recording time for this study was 5233.5 h, less thanthe maximum available time (5,376 h) due to recording errors.Within this sample there were 147,672 adverts (all adverts, notjust food) at an average rate of 28.2 adverts per hour. Of this,18,888 adverts were for food, broadcast at an average rate of 3.6per hour. There was a greater prevalence of food advertising duringpeak children’s viewing times, but the majority of adverts were fornon-core foods across all time periods. These and further findingsrelating to the extent of food advertising within this TV sampleare reported elsewhere (Boyland, Harrold, Kirkham, & Halford,2011).

Promotional characters and celebrity endorsers: types of foodspromoted

Across all channels studied, a promotional character (inclusiveof both brand equity and licensed characters) or a celebrity endor-ser featured on 55.7% of food adverts. There was a significant dif-ference between the use of promotional characters and celebrityendorsers to promote core, non-core and miscellaneous foods(v2(2) = 136.66, p < 0.001). Of the food adverts featuring charactersor celebrities, significantly more were promoting non-core foods(54.8%) than core foods (20.9%; p < 0.001) or miscellaneous foods(24.2%; p < 0.001). The difference between the proportion of coreand miscellaneous food adverts featuring promotional charactersor celebrities (20.9% versus 24.2%) was not significant (p = 0.251)(see Table 1).

Table 1The types of foods represented in food adverts featuring promotional characters(brand equity/licensed characters).

Type of food represented

Non-core

Core Miscellaneous

% Of food adverts featuring a promotionalcharacter

54.8 20.9a 24.2a

a Significantly different from non-core value, p < 0.001.

Table 3The mean proportion of each primary persuasive appeal used in food adverts aimed atchildren.

% Of food advertsaimed at children

Primary persuasive appealFun 50.8Taste 15.7Premium/contest 13.5Health/nutrition 7.4Energy 5.3Unique 3.4Enjoyment/satisfaction 2.2Peer status 1.0Price 0.6General superiority 0.1

E.J. Boyland et al. / Appetite 58 (2012) 658–664 661

In addition, of the food adverts featuring promotional charac-ters or celebrities, these adverts were more likely to be promotingcore foods on children’s channels than on the sport channel (24.8%versus 11.1%; p = 0.001). Promotional characters or celebritieswere more likely to feature on non-core food adverts on the sportchannel than on children’s channels (77.5% versus 61.8%;p = 0.013). Further tests demonstrated that of the food adverts fea-turing promotional characters or celebrities, a greater proportionwere for non-core foods on children’s channels than on familychannels (61.8% versus 45.8%; p < 0.001).

Promotional characters and celebrity endorsers: differences betweenviewing periods

There was a significantly greater proportion of food adverts fea-turing promotional characters during non-peak compared to peakchildren’s viewing periods (21.5% versus 19.3%; p = 0.001). How-ever, there was no significant difference between the proportionof food adverts featuring celebrity endorsers during peak andnon-peak children’s viewing periods (11.0% versus 9.7%;p = 0.883) (see Table 2).

Promotional characters: use of brand equity versus licensed characters

Of the food adverts featuring a promotional character, a signif-icantly greater proportion used brand equity characters (e.g. Tonythe Tiger promoting Kellogg’s Frosties) than used licensed charac-ters (e.g. Spiderman advertising Nestlé Nesquik) to promote foodproducts (81.4% versus 18.6%; v2(1) = 145.510, p < 0.001). This pat-tern held for all channel types, with brand equity characters featur-ing on a greater proportion of the food adverts with promotionalcharacters on children’s channels (67.6% versus 32.4%; p < 0.001),the sport channel (85.7% versus 14.3%; p = 0.004), family channels(90.1% versus 9.9%; p < 0.001) and music channels (92.5% versus7.5%; p < 0.001) than licensed characters.

Persuasive appeals used in adverts aimed at children

During the study period, a total of 4114 food adverts (21.8% ofall food adverts) were considered to be aimed primarily at children.Overall, there was a significant difference between the proportion

Table 2The mean proportion of food adverts featuring promotional characters (brand equity/licensed), celebrity endorsers and premium offers during peak and non-peakchildren’s viewing periods.

Viewing period

Peak Non-peak

% Of food adverts featuringPromotional characters 19.3 21.5a

Celebrity endorsers 11.0 9.7Premium offers 12.4 13.2

a Significantly different from peak value, p < 0.001

of different persuasive appeals used in these adverts(v2(16) = 1808.60, p < 0.001). ‘Fun’ was the most commonly fea-tured primary persuasive appeal, appearing in a significantly great-er proportion of adverts than the seven other primary persuasiveappeals used in adverts aimed at children, ‘taste’ (p < 0.001),‘health/nutrition’ (p < 0.001), ‘product uniqueness’ (p < 0.001), ‘en-ergy’ (p < 0.001), ‘peer status’ (p < 0.001), ‘price’ (p < 0.001) and‘general superiority’ (p < 0.001) (see Table 3).

For example, the theme of ‘fun’ was clearly evident in an advertfor Haribo sweets. The advert depicted a father playfully prevent-ing a mother from getting to a bag of sweets as she chased himaround an airport lounge, while their two children looked on withmock disapproval. The advert ended with the amusing scene of thefather tripping over the luggage and falling to the floor. An advertfor Kellogg’s Frosties used ‘taste’ as the primary persuasive appeal.This advert involved Tony the Tiger climbing a giant ladder andconquering his fear of heights to get to a bowl of the cereal. Con-currently the voiceover stated that ‘people will do anything forthe great taste of Kellogg’s Frosties’, and on-screen text at theend of the ad stated that ‘Frosties taste gr-r-reat’. An example ofan advert using health/nutrition as the primary persuasive appealwas for Hovis bread. The advert depicted the many ways in whichbread and toast could be incorporated into a meal, with childrenreciting a poem as the voice over including the words ‘good forthe heart’. This advert featured a textual disclaimer stating ‘mayhelp maintain heart as part of healthy lifestyle’ and an adult spo-ken disclaimer of ‘white bread with all the wheat-germ goodnessof wholemeal’.

Persuasive appeals used in adverts aimed at teenagers and adults

The primary persuasive appeals most commonly used to adver-tise foods to teenagers and adults were different from those used inadverts aimed at children (all p < 0.001). The most frequently usedprimary persuasive appeal in food adverts targeting teens/adultswas ‘taste’ (25.4%), followed by ‘health/nutrition’ (11.9%) then theuse of a ‘premium/contest’ (10.6%), all featuring significantly morefrequently than in food adverts aimed at children (p < 0.001).

Premium offers: differences between viewing periods

There was no significant difference between the proportion offood adverts featuring premium offers during peak and non-peakchildren’s viewing periods (12.4% versus 13.2%; p = 0.095) (seeTable 2).

662 E.J. Boyland et al. / Appetite 58 (2012) 658–664

Premium offers: types of foods promoted

Of the food adverts featuring premium offers there was a signif-icant difference between the proportions of adverts for core,non-core and miscellaneous foods (v2(2) = 244.91, p < 0.001). Ofthe food adverts featuring premium offers these adverts were mostfrequently for non-core foods (72.6%), significantly more than forcore (12.1%; p < 0.001) or miscellaneous foods (15.3%; p < 0.001).There was no significant difference between core and miscella-neous foods (p = 0.216). Premium offers featured significantlymore frequently in food adverts for core foods on children’s chan-nels (23.6%) than sport (0%; p = 0.001), family (7.8%; p < 0.001) ormusic channels (0.6%; p < 0.001). Premium offers featured signifi-cantly more frequently in food adverts for non-core foods on musicchannels (81.4%) than children’s channels (70.3%; p = 0.002) andfamily channels (69.7%; p = 0.019) but the difference with the sportchannel was non-significant (77.1%, p = 0.867).

Website promotion: differences between adverts aimed at differentage groups

Across the entire sample, a mean of 30.8% of food adverts pro-moted a website. There was no significant difference betweenthe proportion of food adverts directing the viewer to a websitewhen children were the primary target of the advert comparedto adverts aimed at other age groups (v2(4) = 7.971, p = 0.093). Ofthe food adverts targeted at children, 20.4% directed the viewerto a website. For teens/adults this was 46.6%, and for food advertstargeted at ‘all ages’ 34.7% pushed a website address.

Website promotion: differences between viewing periods and types offoods promoted

Further tests examining the proportion of food adverts directingthe viewer to a website showed no significant difference betweenpeak and non-peak viewing periods (v2(1) = 0.299, p = 0.584) orbetween adverts for core or non-core products (v2(1) = 0.649,p = 0.421).

Discussion

This study examined the nature of food advertising (the mes-sages that are used to sell foods) to a non-US population in a verylarge sample of television from 2008, addressing a notable gap inthe literature. As the UK had started to introduce statutory legisla-tion regarding the advertising of food to children when this studywas conducted, these data are a unique opportunity to examine theadvertising landscape at a point of partial regulation and to triggerdiscussions regarding the effectiveness of the UK regulations.These data may also be used to advise policy makers in other coun-tries, where either no regulation or some minimal regulation (suchas industry self-regulation or company pledges) may already be inplace. Without comparable data from the pre-regulation period(prior to April 2007), it is difficult to attribute any findings specif-ically to the impact of the Ofcom rules. Further monitoring will berequired to track trends in the use of persuasive techniques overtime to determine where the regulations appear to be operatingeffectively or where strengthening is required.

The UK regulations specifically restrict the use of celebrities thatare particularly popular with children and have banned the use ofpromotional offers ‘‘in HFSS product advertisements targeted di-rectly at pre-school or primary school children’’ (Ofcom, 2007, p.50). However, the findings of the current study suggested that thisprovided a significant opportunity for such persuasive techniquesto continue to be used to promote non-core (unhealthy) foods on

channels popular with children as long as the character or celebrityis of more general appeal or that the advert is aimed at all viewers,not just children. This could occur regardless of the number of chil-dren being exposed to and persuaded by the commercial messageto request or purchase these foods. This phrasing and emphasison the primary target of the advert is therefore a weakness of thecurrent regulations that does not take into account children’s fre-quent exposure to television or promotional messages that maynot be specifically intended for them. However, it is noteworthythat on children’s channels, of the adverts featuring promotionalcharacters approximately a quarter were promoting core foods(consistent with the 25% reported by Kelly et al. (2010)). The useof such characters can improve both the reported willingness toeat and the actual likelihood of consumption of healthier foods bychildren (De Droog, Buijzen, & Valkenburg, 2011; Kotler, 2007)and therefore this is a trend that should be encouraged.

In addition to promotional characters and celebrity endorsers,premium offers also increase the persuasive power of advertising(Hastings et al., 2003). It was predicted that all of these marketingtechniques would feature on a greater proportion of food advertsduring peak children’s viewing periods so that promotional cam-paigns could maximise their impact on young viewers. However,it does not appear that adverts using these techniques are prefer-entially scheduled during periods with large numbers of childviewers (although a greater percentage of adverts featuring acelebrity endorser were shown during peak compared to non-peakviewing periods, despite a lack of statistical significance). This mayindicate that the regulations are relatively effective in this area,although these techniques can still influence children who are ex-posed to them through viewing in non-peak times. It may be thatby using well established brand equity characters during non-peakchildren’s viewing periods, advertisers are promoting continuedbrand loyalty by appealing to adults through nostalgia with theaim of influencing children through parental modelling and familyfood environments.

Further research is necessary to determine the effect of celeb-rity endorsement on food choice. More specifically it is importantto elucidate if there are any differences in children’s responses tocelebrities of particular appeal to their age group versus celebritiesof more general appeal so that the appropriateness of discriminat-ing between the two in a regulatory sense can be assessed. Again,the specificity of the phrasing of the regulations (‘‘celebrities pop-ular with children’’ in ‘‘HFSS advertisements targeted directly atchildren’’ (Ofcom, 2007, p. 50)) may be providing a loopholethrough which advertisers can continue to use famous endorserswith a more general appeal to promote their products in advertsthat are viewed by children as well as other age groups.

Brand equity characters featured on the greatest proportion ofthe food adverts using promotional characters on the music chan-nels, followed by the family channels and the sport channel. Thesechannel types are likely to be broadcasting programming that ispopular with adults as well as children, and therefore not subjectto the advertising regulations. This means that brand equity char-acters are able to advertise unhealthy foods on these channels toan audience including a sizeable number of children and youngpeople. Both brand equity and licensed characters have beenshown to be effective at increasing product liking and selection(Garretson & Burton, 2005; Garretson & Niedrich, 2004; IOM,2005; Mizerski, 1995; Roberto et al., 2010) and therefore this raisesthe question of whether or not it is justified and appropriate to dis-criminate between the two types of character for the purposes ofregulation? The relative proportion of food adverts featuring brandequity versus licensed characters has never been examined before,and as such these novel data may be useful alongside experimentalevidence of the effects of such marketing techniques in future pol-icy deliberations.

E.J. Boyland et al. / Appetite 58 (2012) 658–664 663

Previous studies have shown that fun and fantasy are frequentlyused to advertise food to children (Hastings et al., 2003; Lewis &Hill, 1998), and the current study findings are consistent with this.Marketing techniques that encourage children to enjoy and engagewith the adverts are likely to have persuasive power (Hastingset al., 2003), although further research is necessary to establishto what extent the various appeals or themes differ in their persua-siveness. Food adverts aimed at teenagers and adults are morelikely to emphasise the taste of the product, health/nutrition andthe use of premiums. This work could be informative to identifywhich type of persuasive appeal would be most useful for healthpromotion strategies to encourage children to adopt healthier die-tary choices.

The frequency of adverts directing viewers to a website, partic-ularly adverts aimed at teenagers and adults, suggests that manu-facturers and advertisers place value in the additional brandexposure a viewer would experience were they to visit the brandor product website following the television advert. As childrenspend increasing amounts of time on the internet, it was expectedthat they would be particularly targeted by website promotionduring television food adverts. This was not the case, howeverfor advertising to all consumers, from a marketer’s perspectivethe internet has many advantages over television not least regard-ing cost-effectiveness and audience tracking capabilities (Moore,2006). Online content requires attention to be focused, and cancapture and maintain young people’s attention for extended peri-ods of time (Kelly, Bochynska, Kornman, & Chapman, 2008). Inaddition, internet advertising is not based on passive exposure aswith television and individuals must actively seek the online con-tent they require (Moore & Rideout, 2007). Therefore whilstsearching they are already engaging with the media. As internet-based food advertising develops as a medium, trends in the promo-tion of food brand websites during television advertising should bemonitored. As our awareness of the effects of exposure to promo-tional material via the internet grows, it may be necessary to intro-duce specific regulations governing the use of web addresses infood adverts to limit the extent to which the relatively unregulatedWorld Wide Web becomes an outlet for food advertisers in the faceof increasing regulation of commercial television.

Conclusion

The current study is the most comprehensive analysis to date ofthe nature of food advertising on the UK television channels mostpopular with children. The American Academy of Pediatrics pur-port that advertisers use techniques to which children and adoles-cents are most susceptible (AAP, 2006). Our current findings areconsistent with this, and these data should provide a useful bench-mark against which to measure progress in this field.

Future research should focus on continued monitoring of thesetrends as well as increasing our understanding of the specific con-tribution that different marketing techniques make towards deter-mining the effectiveness of television food advertising atpersuading children to prefer, request, and consume unhealthyfoods.

References

AAP (2006). Children, adolescents, and advertising. Pediatrics, 118, 2563–2569.Batada, A., & Borzekowski, D. L. (2008). Snap! crackle! what? Recognition of cereal

advertisements and understanding of commercials’ persuasive intent amongurban, minority children in the USA. Journal of Children and Media, 2, 19–36.

Boyland, E. J., Harrold, J. A., Kirkham, T. C., & Halford, J. C. G. (2011). The extent offood advertising to children on UK television in 2008. International Journal ofPediatric Obesity, 6, 455-461.

Callcott, M. F., & Phillips, B. J. (1996). Observations. Elves make good cookies.Creating likable spokes-character advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 36,73–79.

Carruth, B. R., Skinner, J. D., Moran, J. D., & Coletta, F. (2000). Preschoolers’ foodproduct choices at a simulated point of purchase and mothers’ consumerpractices. Journal of Nutrition Education, 32, 146–151.

Chapman, K., Nicholas, P., & Supramaniam, R. (2006). How much food advertising isthere on Australian television? Health Promotion International, 21, 172–180.

Childwise (2007). Trends in children’s TV viewing. Available from: http://www.childwise.co.uk/childwise-articles.asp?ARTICLE=16&SECTION=6.

Connor, S. M. (2006). Food-related advertising on preschool television. Buildingbrand recognition in young viewers. Pediatrics, 118, 1478–1485.

De Droog, S. M., Buijzen, M., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2011). Use a rabbit or a rhino tosell a carrot? The effect of character-product congruence on children’s liking ofhealthy foods. Journal of Health Communication, 16, 79–89.

Erdogan, B. Z. (1999). Celebrity endorsement. A literature review. Journal ofMarketing Management, 15, 291–314.

Furnham, A., Abramsky, S., & Gunter, B. (1997). A cross-cultural content analysis ofchildren’s television advertisements. Sex Roles, 37, 91–99.

Gantz, W., Schwartz, N., Angelini, J. R., & Rideout, V. (2007). Food for thought.Television food advertising to children in the United States. The Kaiser FamilyFoundation.

Garretson, J. A., & Niedrich, R. W. (2004). Spokes-characters. Journal of Advertising,33, 25–36.

Garretson, J. A., & Burton, S. (2005). The role of spokescharacters as advertisementand package cues in integrated marketing communications. The Journal ofMarketing, 69, 118–132.

Hastings, G., Stead, M., McDermott, L., Forsyth, A., MacKintosh, A. M., & Rayner, M.(2003). Review of research on the effects of food promotion to children (Rep. No.prepared for the food standards agency). Centre for Social Marketing, TheUniversity of Strathclyde.

IOM (2005). Food marketing to children and youth. Threat or opportunity?Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Kaiser Family Foundation (2006). It’s child’s play. Advergaming and the onlinemarketing of food to children.

Kelly, B., Bochynska, K., Kornman, K., & Chapman, K. (2008). Internet food marketingon popular children’s websites and food product websites in Australia. PublicHealth Nutrition, 11, 1180–1187.

Kelly, B., Halford, J. C. G., Boyland, E. J., Chapman, K., Bautista-Castano, I., Berg, C.,et al. (2010). Television food advertising to children. A global perspective.American Journal of Public Health, 100, 1730–1736.

Kelly, B., Smith, B., King, L., Flood, V., & Bauman, A. (2007). Television foodadvertising to children. The extent and nature of exposure. Public HealthNutrition, 10, 1234–1240.

Kotler, J. (2007). Healthy habits for life. A great start to a lifetime of good health SesameWorkshops. Available from: http://archive.sesameworkshop.org/aboutus/inside_press.php?contentId=11486265.

Lear, K. E., Runyan, R. C., & Whitaker, W. H. (2009). Sports celebrity endorsements inretail products advertising. International Journal of Retail & DistributionManagement, 37, 308–321.

Lewis, M. K., & Hill, A. J. (1998). Food advertising on British children’s television. Acontent analysis and experimental study with nine-year olds. InternationalJournal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders, 22, 206–214.

Mizerski, R. (1995). The relationship between cartoon trade character recognitionand attitude toward product category in young children. Journal of Marketing,59, 58–70.

Moore, E. S., & Rideout, V. J. (2007). The online marketing of food to children. Is itjust fun and games? Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 26, 202–220.

Moore, E. S. (2006). It’s child’s play. Advergaming and the online marketing of food toChildren University of Notre Dame. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

Ofcom (2004). Childhood obesity. Food advertising in context. Available from: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/tv-research/food_ads/.

Ofcom (2007). Television advertising of food and drink products to children. Finalstatement Office of Communications.

Ofcom (2008). Changes in the nature and balance of television food advertising tochildren. Available from: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/tv-research/hfssdec08/.

Pempek, T. A., & Calvert, S. L. (2009). Tipping the balance. Use of advergames topromote consumption of nutritious foods and beverages by low-income AfricanAmerican children. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 163, 633–637.

Roberto, C. A., Baik, J., Harris, J. L., & Brownell, K. D. (2010). Influence of licensedcharacters on children’s taste and snack preferences. Pediatrics, 126, 88–93.

Ross, R. P., Campbell, T., Wright, J. C., Huston, A. C., Rice, M. L., & Turk, P. (1984).When celebrities talk, children listen. An experimental analysis of children’sresponses to TV ads with celebrity endorsement. Journal of AppliedDevelopmental Psychology, 5, 185–202.

Sahud, H. B., Binns, H. J., Meadow, W. L., & Tanz, R. R. (2006). Marketing fast food.Impact of fast food restaurants in children’s hospitals. Pediatrics, 118,2290–2297.

Schor, J. B., & Ford, M. (2007). From tastes great to cool. Children’s food marketingand the rise of the symbolic. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 35, 10–21.

Sixsmith, R., & Furnham, A. (2010). A content analysis of British food advertisementsaimed at children and adults. Health Promotion International, 25, 24–32.

Thickett, J. (2007). Ofcom and the future of children’s programming. Available from:http://media.ofcom.org.uk/2007/05/15/ofcom-voice-of-the-listener-and-viewer-speech/.

Ülger, B. (2009). Packages with cartoon trade characters versus advertising. Anempirical examination of preschoolers’ food preferences. Journal of FoodProducts Marketing, 15, 104–117.

664 E.J. Boyland et al. / Appetite 58 (2012) 658–664

Weber, K., Story, M., & Harnack, L. (2006). Internet food marketing strategies aimedat children and adolescents. A content analysis of food and beverage brand websites. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 106, 1463–1466.

Which? (2005). Shark tales and incredible endorsements. Available from: http://www.which.co.uk/documents/pdf/shark-tales-and-incredible-endorsements-which-report-176879.pdf.

WHO (2010). Set of recommendations for the marketing of food and non-alcoholicbeverages to children. Available from: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2010/9789241500210_eng.pdf.

Wicks, J., Warren, R., Fosu, I., & Wicks, R. H. (2009). Dual-modality disclaimers,emotional appeals, and production techniques in food advertising airing duringprograms rated for children. Journal of Advertising, 38, 93–105.