OPINION: Advertising-only approach for kids’ obesity campaign By Grant Common Editor published July-August 2005 Grant has 30 years direct experience in public relations and communication in Australia and New Zealand - as well as directing and managing programs in the UK and USA. He has consulted to Governments, publicly listed companies, industry bodies, marketing organisations, multinationals and not-for-profit organisations. He is Managing Director of Sydney-based Network PR and as a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors (having completed the Company Directors Diploma examination) he is also one of the few PR practitioners to have the perspective of the company director. Is the recent release of a $10 million “Eat Well, Play Well, Live Well” advertising campaign aimed at children and their parents a serious attempt to attack the obesity issue? Led by the Australian Association of National Advertisers (representing the majority of Australia’s major advertisers and most recognised brands), this campaign has been made possible by donations from the marketing, advertising and media industries totalling millions of dollars worth of media space. In evaluating the campaign, it is probably worthwhile to ask: Why have national advertisers shelled out $10m? No matter how hard the participants try (and how well intentioned they may be) the perception lingers that this campaign is defensive. We suspect it is perceived by most consumers (if they are even aware of it) as a reaction to threats by Government and politicians, fuelled by community pressure about perceived inappropriate advertising to children.   As one would expect, many cynics quoted in the media are viewing the campaign as nothing more than the advertising industry and its clients protecting themselves. Indeed, even editorials in the advertising publication AdNews seem suspicious about its purpose. The May 20 issue states “Advertisers are concerned that without a proactive approach from the industry, government will seek to regulate the sector or even introduce bans on certain advertising, as Labor proposed before the last election.” In the June 17 issue of the same title, the editor states “If one were overly cynical, last week’s launch of the industry-funded anti-obesity campaign could be seen as a bit of a sham.  Advertisers and the industries that feed off them (agencies and media) stumped up for a campaign paying lip-service to the raging problem of obesity so the government couldn’t accuse them of sitting back and doing nothing.” How broad is the campaign? Times are changing. Despite what community pressure groups say, advertising is only one part of the ‘persuasion’ industry. Marketers know that. Today, any communication campaign has to employ a whole raft of communication techniques; in fact marketing to children and youth is a specialist area. Therefore it’s ironic that this campaign should be released at a time when Australia’s most respected marketing commentator - Neil Shoebridge - has published a series of articles around the theme that conventional advertising is losing its influence.  His articles have showed how many marketers in Australia are using alternative techniques to reach their audiences. Yet what communication techniques is ‘Eat Well, Play Well, Live Well’ using?  It’s created a cartoon character called Jo Lively and his dog Jive. And through what mediums will kids and their parents be exposed to the messages?  Through advertisements on TV, radio, print, and outdoor and cinema ads! A token attempt has been made at a website (www.jolively.com); but whilst being visually attractive, the site contains very little actual content. In fact, one of the functions of the website appears to be the justification of the role of advertising, i.e.: promotion of the activities performed by those supporting the Jo Lively campaign! In none of the articles that have been published regarding this campaign is there a hint of any other methodology. In short, it’s simply another advertising campaign using conventional media to gain nothing more than visibility!  Ho hum! What’s the history of community awareness campaigns? Community awareness campaigns are notoriously difficult beasts. So, regardless of what the industry does, this current campaign has its work cut out if it is to succeed. Additionally, this initiative comes from the same industry that created the “Life. Be in it” campaign of nearly a quarter of a century ago. “Life. Be in it” is well remembered by most middle-aged or senior Australians. Prompted awareness for that campaign among this group is probably as high as for any campaign of its type. But it is also widely recognised as having not worked. Apparently it was wonderfully creative advertising - but little else. In addressing a Parliamentary Standing Committee in 1997, James Ferguson, Executive Director of the Australian Sports Committee said “Life. Be in it” was a very good program in terms of encouraging people, and a program that received a lot of awards for its publicity and for its advertising creativity. But we suspect that it did not have a great effect in terms of changing people’s behaviour, because the supply side was not addressed.” In short Norm, who in the advertising campaign personified the needed change to our sedentary habits, remained Norm. Little changed. So where are we today? It seems Norm and his generation have bred today’s litter of obese and overweight children, the same children that Jo Lively is hoping to motivate - with more advertising!  Has nothing been learnt from history? Where is the supply side that Ferguson referred to?  Where is the connection to a sports or recreation component with Jo Lively? The ‘Play Well’ component of the campaign encourages physical activity; however no resources are supplied to aid consumers as they attempt to increase their physical activity. Where are the kid friendly-web sites (www.jolively.com is a bright, cartoon style website with a page written in ‘kid language’, however it is not interactive and arguably provides little to entice children), and other techniques of the 21st century that Neil Shoebridge has recently exampled? What is the campaign doing to connect with schools? There are no connections because one wouldn’t really expect to find them with an advertising campaign. Advertising is mainly about awareness.  It’s about talking to consumers - not about interacting with them. It is about ‘big picture easy solutions’. The advertising might well be memorable, but without support mechanisms it is just another of the thousands of messages kids and their parents are bombarded with each day. And given the campaign was borne out of an attack on advertising; the advertisers have simply responded with more advertising. Surely a strong case can be made for PR, using techniques such as Word-of-Mouth, influencer marketing and community marketing, being part of the mix. The Federal Government’s parallel campaigns (with another character!) do have some ‘below-the-line’ activities but they are pushing other messages - not Jo Lively.  There is no synergy. By all means let the advertising lead and create the awareness; but complement it with PR which is all about influencing attitudes and behaviour. The two together are a much more potential force than just one! (NB: A UK survey of children released in March 2005 shows that food manufacturers should redirect their efforts of combating obesity by focusing on parents and teachers. Schools were seen as the key to children exercising more. And only 7 per cent of children claim to be influenced by TV adverts!). What’s the take out? Credit should be given to campaign participants for picking up the challenge. $10 million is a big contribution (even if that’s probably not the actual cash amount). Granted, the initial attack by community groups and politicians was on advertising. But to use the majority of the funds for the campaign on advertising alone does not bode well for the chances of its success - and leaves the industry open to the accusation that it is not being as innovative as it should and could have been (eg: would any major company these days really spend all of its budget on conventional advertising?). An 80/20 approach - $8 million on advertising and $2m on PR, and/or other marketing techniques - would have not only been more credible, but it would have arguably created much more ‘buzz’ and increased the odds of actually achieving some attitudinal and behavioural change. The food industry has many members involved in the Jo Lively campaign, and in addition, over the last year or so many food companies have made genuine efforts to change their products and take a more responsible approach to the problem of childhood obesity. They deserve more credit for these moves than has been forthcoming. The opportunity was there to make “Eat Well, Play Well, Live Well” and its central character Jo Lively (and dog Jive) into an extension of this through an all-embracing community effort. Instead, there is a real danger that the effort will be lost, and that it will be seen as just another advertising campaign. One among many! In years to come, the industry may have left itself open to accusations that the campaign wasn’t seriously trying to address the issue. That would be a sad situation, for some genuinely committed marketers - because their individual efforts deserve better recognition. Grant Common Editor Disclosure:  Network PR, publisher of PR Influences, is involved in an initiative to encourage adult Australians to better balance exercise and food through www.activeforlife.com.au

PR Influences Australian Public Relations Newsletter. Article: Advertising-only approach for kids’ obesity campaign. Information Content: Opinion & Comment