The link between advertising and childhood obesity

Recent research suggests a link between what kids watch on TV and the actions that they take. Researchers from the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand published a study that shows a link between junk food advertising and childhood obesity -- which some say is reaching epic proportions.

The Study has followed a group of around 1000 children born in Dunedin in 1972-73. Every two years between the ages of 5 and 15, they were asked how much television they watched. The researchers found that those who watched the most television had the most health problems as young adults. Those with higher television watching habits had higher levels of obesity, blood cholesterol and smoking - as well as lower levels of physical fitness - when they reached adulthood than kids who watched less than two hours a day.

The fat factor: the impact of advertising on kids

The Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-profit special interest group, recently released a report that says tweens see about 20 food advertisements every day. The foundation conducted media research on the viewing habits of kids aged 2-17 and compared that to the content of the advertising on the most popular television networks. The results suggest that while children are not exposed to 3,000 ads each day, there may be a link between television advertising and childhood obesity.

The study tracked shows watched by children ages two to 17 on 13 broadcast
and cable television networks in 2005, analysing the advertisement quantity and
content. Children saw many thousands of food ads a year, most touting
unhealthy products, it found.

• Children ages 8 to 12 viewed the most food ads – on average,
  21 daily and more than 7600 a year totalling nearly 51 hours.
• Those ages 13 to 17 viewed 17 food ads daily and more than 6000 a year totalling nearly 41 hours.
• Children ages two to seven saw 12 food ads daily and 4400 a year totalling
  almost 30 hours. These younger children watched less TV overall and were more
  likely to watch channels with limited or no advertising like PBS and Disney.
• Half of all ad time on children's shows was for food products – a higher
  proportion than for any type of show. About 80 per cent of these were for candy,
  snack foods like chips, sugary cereals, fast food, sodas and other soft drinks.
• The findings were based on a sample of 1638 hours of TV programming that
  included 8854 food ads. Some shows were specifically made for children and
  others not. Of all the ads, none touted fruits or vegetables.

The average American is exposed to...

In his blog, Publicity Times, Mr. Lonny Kocina reports that his Google research confirms, "that 97% of all statistics are made up on the spot." He writes that the numbers on advertising impressions range from a low of 247 to a high of 4,000. He was curious as to where the 3,000 number comes from but decided (in jest) to settle on his own number of 1,724 as he thought it was more believable.

Another reference to 3,000 advertisements

Referred to as a "flood", the number 3,000 advertisements appears in a 2001 Accenture whitepaper: Customer Segment Management: Moving One Step Closer to Nirvana ( http://tinyurl.com/hdznx). The paper argues companies need to adopt a customer-centric business model for three reasons: a flood of competing messages; ever-rising customer expectations; and mounting financial pressures.

The authors, Clive Whitehouse, Ruth E. Spencer and Michael Payne, suggest that the number of commercial messages competing for a customer's attention has risen to 3,000 per day in the US in 2000 up from 650 in 1985. They do not indicate their source of this information. This the change represents a 350% growth over 15 years. As you can see by the chart, the change in traditional media messages represents a 293% growth over this period.

The average American adult is aware of 76 advertisements a day in the major media

Two respected academics, reported in their book, Advertising in America: The Consumer View (1968), the average adult is aware of 76 ads each day. The authors, Stephen A. Greyser and Raymond A. Bauer, based their findings on interviews and a counting study with more than 1,500 adult individuals. Study participants were asked to count each advertisement in major media (magazines, newspapers, radio and television) to which he or she paid at least some attention.

The best brands in Canada

The Globe and Mail this week published a series of stories on the biggest brands in Canada. The articles were based on the first Canadian study Interbrand has published. To qualify for the Best Canadian Brands, companies have to be publicly traded, have at least 65% of revenues from within Canada, and have a market-facing presence. The top ten brands are:

1. RBC
2. TD Bank
3. Petro-Canada
4. Bell Canada
5. Shoppers Drug Mart
6. Tim Hortons
7. Bank of Montreal
8. Canadian Tire
9. Scotiabank
10. Telus

The methodology used to evaluate the brands is fascinating to read as I continue to try and develop a way of measuring the number of impressions people see on a daily basis.

The year was 1957 and the number was 1,518

The year was 1957 and the orator was Edwin Ebel, VP General Foods. His speech gave rise to one of the widely and most used statistics of his day, the average family of four receives 1,518 advertising exposures each day. An except follows [Britt, Adams, Miller: Journal of Advertising Research, Dec. 1972]:

Did you ever calculate how much advertising an ordinary family is exposed to? A couple of bright young men in my office did some statistically inadequate research for me that is most interesting. It is inadequate only because it represents a picture of one family but the family is typical of many families in America--John, who commutes to work; his wife Mary; and their two children. We made a careful count of the advertising this family was exposed to in one ordinary working day.

It is intriguing to me that a number, based on what sounds to be back of the napkin work, exists almost 50 years later for the answer to the intriguing question of this blog. Just for fun, using an inflation calculator, I punched in the number of 1,518 exposures in 1957 and the total came back as 10,316 at the end of 2005. Perhaps advertising is not keeping pace with inflation? Please let me know what you think.

One of the worst taglines

During a recent trip to a summer festival I was reminded of one of the worst taglines I've ever heard:

"plant your tulips around pork"

I guess the pork marketing board was a sponsor (that was nice of them) and they were looking to make an association with the festival. I'm not even sure I know what that one means.

CONSUMERS HATE INTERNET ADVERTISING

Ari Rosenberg writes:

...when prompted, most can name their favorite ad, while many can articulate its purpose relative to the exchange for content. However, place the word "Internet" in front of "advertising" and watch the contempt "pop up."

That's because televisions do not get viruses, magazines do not crash, and ads do not appear out of nowhere to cover the article consumers are reading in their daily newspaper. These Internet-advertising-inflicted mishaps fuel consumer backlash. Factor in a healthy suspicion of cookies, the annoyance of pop-unders, sound without consent, spam from here to eternity, ads that expand beyond their boundaries and spyware practices that occur under the radar, and you have to be living under a pile of revenue not to see how poorly we as an industry treat the consumer attention we profit from.

Rosenberg suggests that online publishers need to start to build trust with their audience by doing what's right (i.e. no more pop up ads) and forming a network of publishers willing to "certify" their sites.

It sounds good, but the rational part of my brain keeps asking, what if it works? What if agressive creative techiques that get attention deliver results to advertisers? Sure we need guidelines and ethics on which to opperate, but don't we also owe our shareholders / stakeholders results for the money we marketers spend to try and sell and position their products?

Polarizing advertising

I was surprised to hear radio jock talk about the Canadian Tire advertising and how much they hated the bearded guy (think Bob Villa) who is a spokesman for the retailer’s gadgets and products. Maybe it’s my middling ways, but how could people get so excited and passionate about advertising that featured a wholesome family peddling pressure washers and inflatable air mattresses? A quick water cooler poll suggested that it was not just radio personalities, but also coworkers who had a hate on for the ads.

The company says it’s “positioning Dad in a respectful role” and continuing the company’s tradition of featuring fathers in weekend moments with their kids. In the mid 1990’s the company moved away from its slogan, “more than just tires” and adopted “I’ll start with you” (originally a song released as a solo in 1992 by Paulette Carlson, the lead singer of country group Highway 101).

As part of this extension, the company now hopes to appeal to mothers who now seem to be courted by all the traditional “guy” stores, like The Home Depot. This advertising approach is backed up by the opening of new decorating-style stores; wedding/gift registry; and on-the-go stores based around a gas station.

But coming back to the point of this post, I’m sure Canadian Tire (yes they tried CTC for a while to drop the “Tire” but this was around the time of KFC and never caught on) didn’t set out to create a mockable character. But perhaps the casual hatred is a sign that the advertising has penetrated the consciousness of views and resonated—positively or negatively—with them. Does not a parody of serious advertising mean that you’ve truly reached the top shelf?

Overleaping ambition

OK, I’ve decided—during the dog days of summer—that I’d rather be outside playing than pounding on the keyboard, so I’m resetting expectations….

3000ads will deliver three thousand during the lifetime of this blog not during the next year. It’s impossible!

Which leads me to think, “how is it possible that anyone could be exposed to 3000 advertisements in a year?”

Company Names

Corporate Confusion
The ad on the side of the truck read:

ACME Inc. We contain all your solutions. 555-1212

I was dumbstruck right in the middle of the crosswalk. Only the honking of the oncoming cars brought me back to my senses and encouraged me to consider the use of riddles in company taglines and to get out of the middle of the road. After some head scratching I realized that this company probably made containers into which one could put liquids of various kinds. While I readily admit I am part of the population that makes MENSA possible, a mysterious corporate description probably isn’t the best approach if you want prospects to call you. Heck, I was so caught up in the idiom I didn’t even remember the phone number or else I would’ve called and suggested:

ACME Inc. We make containers for (hazardous) liquids. 555-1212

You got a solution for ACME, click on the comments button to add your $0.02.

Trends in logos

The visual component of corporate identity, a logo, is a fascinating evolutionary being. Graphic Design USA covers the new and emerging trends each year in a round up of what is new. For fun, try and count the number of logos you saw today.

How many advertisments do we see each day?

The often-cited and much hyped number is... can you guess... 3,000.
Google pulled some research together on how many advertisements do we see each day. The subject is of great interest to me and I hope to build a site that looks at some of these ads. My goal is to post 3,000 ads on the site over the next year.