Professional Documents
Culture Documents
BACKGROUND: Nutritionally poor foods are heavily advertised to children on television. Whether those abstract
same products are also advertised to parents on television has not been systematically examined.
METHODS: This study is a content analysis of advertisements for childrens packaged foods and
beverages aired over US network, cable, and syndicated television for 1 year (2012 to 2013).
The target audience of each advertisement was dened as children or parents based on
advertisement content, where parent-directed advertisements included emotional appeals
related to family bonding and love. Advertisement characteristics and patterns of airtime were
compared across target audience, and the proportion of total airtime devoted to
advertisements targeting parents was computed.
RESULTS: Fifty-one childrens food or beverage products were advertised over the study year, 25
(49%) of which were advertised directly to parents. Parent-directed advertisements more
often featured nutrition and health messaging and an active lifestyle than child-directed
advertisements, whereas child-directed advertisements more frequently highlighted fun and
product taste. Over all products, 42.4% of total airtime was devoted to advertisements that
targeted parents. The products with the most amount of airtime over the study year were
ready-to-eat cereals, sugar-sweetened beverages, and childrens yogurt, and the proportion of
total advertisement airtime for those products devoted to parents was 24.4%, 72.8%, and
25.8%, respectively.
DISCUSSION: Television advertisements for childrens packaged foods and beverages frequently
targeted parents with emotional appeals and messaging related to nutrition and health.
Findings are of concern if exposure to such advertisements among parents may shape their
beliefs about the appropriateness of nutritionally questionable childrens foods and beverages.
a
Cancer Control Research Program, Norris Cotton Cancer Center, and eDepartment of Pediatrics, Geisel School of WHATS KNOWN ON THIS SUBJECT: Nutritionally
Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire; bDepartments of Epidemiology and dCommunity and Family
Medicine, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire; cDepartment of General Medicine, poor foods are frequently marketed to children
Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire on US television. As manufacturers face
Drs Emond and Gilbert-Diamond conceptualized and designed the study; Dr Emond, Ms Smith, and increasing pressure to limit such marketing,
Ms Mathur coded advertisements; Drs Sargent and Gilbert-Diamond critically reviewed data parents may become an increasingly important
analyses; Dr Emond completed data analyses and drafted the initial manuscript; Ms Smith assisted audience. However, little is known about parent-
in drafting the initial manuscript; Dr Sargent reviewed and revised the manuscript; Dr Gilbert-
Diamond critically reviewed the manuscript; and all authors approved the nal manuscript as directed marketing for childrens foods.
submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: Nutritionally poor
www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/peds.2015-2853 childrens foods were frequently advertised to
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2015-2853 parents on US television using emotional and
Accepted for publication Sep 22, 2015 health-related appeals. Whether exposure to
Address correspondence to Jennifer A. Emond, Department of Epidemiology, Geisel School of such marketing may shape a parents beliefs
Medicine at Dartmouth, Hinman Box 7920, Hanover, NH 03755. E-mail: jennifer.a.emond@dartmouth. about the appropriateness of nutritionally poor
edu childrens foods warrants investigation.
PEDIATRICS (ISSN Numbers: Print, 0031-4005; Online, 1098-4275).
Copyright 2015 by the American Academy of Pediatrics
child and parent, show the item tisements included a theme of family bonding.
b P value from x 2 test; Fisher exact test was used if the number of advertisements in a stratum was #5.
consumed in the advertisement,
c NA, not applicable: comparison not presented because characteristic related to family bonding appeal, which was used
feature a nutritional or health to dene parent-directed advertisements.
message (eg, any spoken or written d Each advertisement was coded for 4 appeals at most.
TABLE 2 Television Advertisement Airtime for Childrens Packaged Foods and Beverages by Product Type and Target Audience
Product Airtime, Overall h Airtime by Target Audienceb
(% Total Airtime)a
Children Parents
h % Overall h % Overall
Overall 3043.6 (100) 1753.3 57.6 1290.4 42.4
Ready-to-eat cereals 1105.9 (36.3) 835.6 75.6 270.2 24.4
Sugar-sweetened beverages
Overall 365.8 (12.0) 99.5 27.2 266.3 72.8
Sugar-sweetened fruit drinks 249.2 (8.2) 99.5 39.9 149.7 60.1
Chocolate milk 116.6 (3.8) 116.6 100
Childrens yogurt 258.7 (8.5) 191.9 74.2 66.8 25.8
Candy 254.5 (8.4) 224.2 88.1 30.3 11.9
Chocolate 207.9 (6.8) 207.9 100
Fruit chews or roll-ups 139.7 (4.6) 75.2 53.8 64.5 46.2
Canned soup 121.1 (4.0) 2.8 2.3 118.4 97.7
Graham and baked crackersc 108.6 (3.6) 87.9 80.9 20.7 19.1
Bottled water 99.1 (3.3) 99.1 100
Childrens entrees 80.7 (2.7) 58.4 72.4 22.3 27.7
Condiments 70.2 (2.3) 70.2 100
Lunch kits 61.5 (2.0) 49.9 81.2 11.6 18.9
Deli meats 44.0 (1.4) 44.0 100
Potato chips 42.5 (1.2) 42.5 100
Baked beans 36.8 (1.2) 36.8 100
Breakfast pastry 19.8 (0.7) 19.8 100
Frozen novelties 19.6 (0.6) 16.4 83.8 3.2 16.3
Puffed corn 2.9 (0.1) 2.9 100
100% orange juice 4.2 (0.1) 2.1 50.0 2.1 50.8
Advertisements selected among all packaged food and beverage advertisements aired in the United States over network and cable television, March 2012 to February 2013. Parent-
directed advertisements were dened as having a family bonding appeal. None of the child-directed advertisements included a theme of family bonding. , indicates 0.
a Percent total airtime sums down columns.
b Percent airtime by product sums across rows.
c Graham crackers and baked crackers were combined because one manufacturer frequently promoted several varieties of graham and baked crackers in the same advertisements.
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The authors have indicated they have no nancial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.
FUNDING: All phases of this study were supported by the National Institutes of Health (JAE, MS, DGD, grants 5R21HD076097-02, P20GM104416, and P01ES022832); the
Environmental Protection Agency (JAE, MS, DGD, grant RD83544201); and the Women in Science Program at Dartmouth College (SM). None of the funders had a role
in the design, analysis, or writing of this article. Funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conicts of interest to disclose.
REFERENCES
1. Botha S, Fentonmiller K, Jennings C, et al. most. Am J Public Health. 2005;95(9): year analysis. Glob J Health Sci. 2014;
A review of food marketing to children 15681574 6(2):175182
and adolescents: follow-up report. 10. Manganello JA, Clegg Smith K, Sudakow
6. Cairns GAK, Hastings G. (2009) The
Washington DC: Federal Trade K, Summers AC. A content analysis of
extent, nature and effects of food
Commission; 2012. Available at: www.ftc. food advertisements appearing in
promotion to children: a review of the
gov/reports/review-food-marketing- parenting magazines. Public Health Nutr.
evidence to December 2008. Geneva:
children-adolescents-follow-report. 2013;16(12):21882196
World Health Organization. Institite for
Accessed September 29, 2015
Social Marketing, University of Stirling, 11. Jones S, Fabrianesi B. Gross for kids
2. Powell LM, Harris JL, Fox T. Food and the Open University, United Kingdom. but good for parents: differing
marketing expenditures aimed at youth: Available at: www.who.int/ messages in advertisements for the
putting the numbers in context. Am J dietphysicalactivity/publications/ same products. Public Health Nutr.
Prev Med. 2013;45(4):453461 marketing_evidence_2009/en/. Accessed 2008;11(6):588595
September 29, 2015
3. The Neilsen Company. An era of growth: 12. British Heart Foundation. How parents
the cross-platform report. Available at: 7. McGinnis JM, Gootman JA, Kraak VI, eds. are being misled: a campaign report on
penngood.com/wp-content/uploads/ Food marketing to children and youth: childrens food marketing. 2008.
2014/03/nielsen-cross-platform-report- threat or opportunity? Washington, DC: Available at: http://image.guardian.co.uk/
march-2014.pdf. Accessed September 29, Committee on Food Marketing and the sys-les/Guardian/documents/2008/12/
2015 Diets of Children and Youth, Food and 15/G449_How_parents_are_being_
Nutrition Board, Board on Children, misled_report.pdf. Accessed October 9,
4. Dembek CR, Harris JL, Schwartz MB.
Youth, and Families, Institute of 2015
Where children and adolescents view
Medicine. Available at: iom.
food and beverage ads on TV: exposure 13. Harris JLSM, Brownell KD et al. Sugary
nationalacademies.org/Reports/2005/
by channel and program. Hartford, CT: Drink Facts. Hartford, CT: Rudd Center
Food-Marketing-to-Children-and-Youth-
Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity. for Food Policy and Obesity. Available at:
Threat-or-Opportunity.aspx. Accessed
Available at: www.uconnruddcenter.org/ www.sugarydrinkfacts.org. Accessed
September 29, 2015
les/Pdfs/Rudd_Report_TV_Ad_ September 29, 2015
Exposure_Channel_Program_2013.pdf. 8. Henry AE, Borzekowski DL. The nag
14. Hebden L, King L, Kelly B. Art of
Accessed September 29, 2015 factor. J Child Media. 2011;5(3):298317
persuasion: an analysis of techniques
5. Harrison K, Marske AL. Nutritional 9. Basch CH, Hammond R, Ethan D, Samuel used to market foods to children. J
content of foods advertised during the L. Food advertisements in two popular U. Paediatr Child Health. 2011;47(11):
television programs children watch S. parenting magazines: results of a ve- 776782
The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is
located on the World Wide Web at:
/content/136/6/1095.full.html