Top >> Opinion__Comment Opinion: Food industry off to a mixed start in its fight against obesity By Grant Common July 2003 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 Communications and principal of Comsult Communication Design, a consultancy specialising in the emerging management discipline that focuses on how organisations internally plan, structure and organise their communication. 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. Watching to see how the food industry handles the obesity crisis that is now well and truly upon them will be interesting over coming months. First up have been the actions of three multinationals. How each of them appears to have handled this issue is enlightening. McDonalds has already confirmed its reputation as not only a smart marketer, but as a multinational that it is truly structured and equipped to ‘think and act locally’. It’s launched three major recent initiatives that can be classified as classic ‘public relations’. First was a new web site that lets customers see the nutritional values of its products. Around the same time it held an ‘open day’ to let Australians get behind the counter. As well, it’s started producing a free eight page full colour ‘ restaurant newspaper’ for its 700 plus restaurants Australia wide. And, of course, these initiatives are all integrated with an advertising approach that reflects the new environment. While McDonalds is more of an obvious target than many other food marketers, and therefore may have little option but to do something more demonstrably public, it has to be admired for its ‘attack is the best means of defence’ attitude. At the other end of the spectrum is Kraft Australia which really ‘dropped the ball’ (or wasn’t passed it by its international parent) and in the process turned a possible plus into a very real minus. The occasion was an international announcement by Kraft about a range of initiatives aimed at addressing rising obesity - including portion sizes to be capped, nutrition labelling to be improved, elimination of in-school marketing, guidelines for advertising and marketing of its products to children etc. Did Kraft use this international initiative to announce this in Australia and explain what it all meant here and to take a local leadership position? No - its ‘spokesman’ simply said - "I’m not authorised to comment, and I can’t comment because this is being led from overseas". Furthermore the salt was rubbed into the wound by the media going to other food marketers who quietly, but effectively, ‘put the boot’ into Kraft. The local marketer - Goodman Fielder - said that these concerns are not so new here and ‘food makers here already self-regulate in those areas’ (by inference Kraft internationally is playing ‘catchup’ and is not relevant to Australia anyway). Then Unilever was quoted as saying that ‘we’ve been conscious of these issues in Australia and have been doing something about it for a period’. They then gave a range of seemingly impressive statistics - the number of products in Australia and New Zealand carrying the Heart Foundation’s tick of approval has gone from 15- 53 in three years. Over 150 Unilever products now contain 25 per cent less salt than two years ago. And a couple more! That made them look light years ahead of Kraft and very conscious of their local Australian responsibilities. The irony is that these three companies are genuinely making efforts to react to the obesity issues. They appear to have actually changed (or are in the process of changing) their product formulas to be more responsive. However, while they all have strong stories to tell, only McDonald’s appears to be adequately communicating. Is this because they have a structure that allows them to move quickly and be more responsive? Is it because McDonald’s people are in the main self-employed business people who are at the coal face whereas the traditional multinational has a product/brand manager structure that is focussed primarily on market share and doing marketing by numbers? Of course McDonalds has the over-riding advantage (in communication terms) of being a single brand with high visibility. Most of the other multinationals have layers of brands and different names; and it has to be recognised that it does not make communication of this type easy. Credit has to be given to Unilever in the circumstances surrounding the Kraft story. Clearly they have all the facts at their fingertips and some clear messages which enabled them to score a knockout on the day against a rival. But the question has to be asked as to why Unilever hasn’t more actively communicated the story of what it has done. It is a good story. It’s one they should be making far more of. As for Kraft, obviously it was just one of those days. Were they genuinely left high and dry by their parent? Or was there was a real breakdown in local PR with a failure to appreciate the opportunities or the downsides? Their PR function really has to take a stronger local stance within the global structure if it is to be relevant. They have some real catching up to do and they have to start looking a little more Australian. The next cab off the rank in the obesity battle is the food industry’s ‘Healthy Lifestyle’ advertising campaign under the auspices of the Australian Association of National Advertisers. It is aimed at children and their parents and is industry’s response to calls for advertising to children to be regulated. While the willingness of the food industry, and the support of the media, to fund such a campaign has to be applauded, it has to be questioned whether running a 30 second cartoon advertisement will, by itself, address the issue. On the face of it this approach seems rather superficial and a very 1990s approach to a 2003 issue. If the food industry is genuinely serious about communicating its position shouldn’t it engage in a broader communication effort than simply a television advertisement? Haven’t we learned that it has been the years of concentration solely on advertising that has caused this backlash against industry? Isn’t there a multiplicity of audiences and messages that the food industry needs to consider? Lets hope that a cartoon advertisement is not the only piece of communication to address this multi-factorial problem. It’s a complex issue that demands a comprehensive approach. The food industry has been slow to react to the obesity issue. But all credit to what some companies are now doing. However the efforts won’t get the recognition they deserve if they don’t think more strategically about their communications. Reality means nothing unless, and until, it is received and perceived in the most appropriate way. Grant Common

PR Influences Australian Public Relations Newsletter. Article: Food industry off to a mixed start in obesity fight. Information Content: Opinion & Comment