Genitori e consumatori: le scelte alimentari tra figli e marketing

Quanto l’etica del marketing alimentare – soprattutto quando indirizzato ai bambini – influisce sulle scelte dei genitori? C’è una sensibilità crescente che porta i genitori – in qualità di consumatori – a boicottare le aziende alimentari poco virtuose?

Questo è il primo articolo del blog in italiano, proprio perché tocca da vicino le famiglie italiane e le loro scelte di consumo. Ho infatti deciso di dare qui spazio alla ricerca da me condotta tra Luglio e Settembre 2015 per la mia tesi di laurea “Marketing ethics and children: how ethicality impacts on parent’s purchasing behaviour”, basata su un questionario rivolto ai genitori italiani di bambini di età compresa fra gli 0 e i 12 anni. Il questionario – condiviso su Facebook in gruppi dedicati alla genitorialità – era volto a verificare alcune ipotesi:

• Relazione positiva tra riconoscimento di un comportamento di marketing alimentare poco etico e comportamento punitivo (boicottaggio) delle aziende poco virtuose
• Relazione positiva tra attenzione all’approccio etico e comportamento premiale nei confronti delle aziende virtuose
• Relazione positiva tra attenzione a una dieta salutare e attenzione all’approccio etico
• Relazione positiva tra grado d’informazione sui temi etici e comportamento punitivo

Il metodo era presentare ai genitori un comportamento – dall’advergaming, ossia  la creazione di videogiochi connessi a prodotti alimentari e alla loro sponsorizzazione, alle pubblicità che promuovono come colazione ideale dei bambini cibi ricchi di zuccheri e grassi, dalla pubblicità “mimetizzata” all’interno di programmi interamente dedicati all’infanzia alla promozione di bevande molto zuccherate e gasate per i bambini – e testare la loro reazione di fronte a esso.

Genitori e consumatori: le scelte alimentari tra figli e marketing

I risultati più rilevanti sono stati:

• 406 risposte in 3 giorni! Questo risultato sorprendente – considerando il tema, abbastanza di nicchia – è già di per sé un segnale che le famiglie italiane hanno un interesse crescente per l’aspetto etico, soprattutto in un settore delicato come quello alimentare.
• Il 98.3% dei rispondenti sono donne: questo dato è un segnale del fatto che l’educazione alimentare dei bambini italiani è ancora ad appannaggio quasi totale delle madri.
• La relazione positiva tra riconoscimento di un comportamento poco etico e comportamento punitivo delle aziende poco virtuose è stata verificata: i genitori italiani sono più pronti ad agire concretamente contro le aziende dai comportamenti non etici.
• La relazione positiva tra l’attenzione a una dieta salutare e l’attenzione all’approccio etico è stata verificata: le famiglie più sensibili a educare i propri figli a uno stile di vita sano e ad abitudini alimentari equilibrate sono anche più attente ai comportamenti etici delle aziende che operano in questo settore.
• Maggiore è l’informazione sul tema, maggiore è la disposizione ad adottare comportamenti punitivi nei confronti delle aziende poco virtuose.

Genitori e consumatori: le scelte alimentari tra figli e marketing

Le mie conclusioni convergono intorno a un punto focale: l’etica del marketing – soprattutto in campo alimentare – è un tema d’interesse crescente per la società, soprattutto per le famiglie, che sentono in particolar modo la responsabilità di proteggere i propri figli da un tipo di marketing spregiudicato e poco attento alle esigenze dell’età infantile. Attualmente, la popolazione “salutista” è in forte aumento – basti pensare alla crescita esponenziale del trend vegetariano e vegano – e questo va di pari passo con un approccio più critico nei confronti del marketing alimentare e dei suoi aspetti più privi di scrupoli, che possono nuocere a una società già gravata dal problema pressante dell’obesità infantile – che, ricordiamo, non è solo americano.Da neolaureata in economia che ha appena avuto accesso al mondo del marketing, suggerisco alle aziende di non sottovalutare l’impegno etico e di considerare che comportamenti spregiudicati, sebbene profittevoli nel breve termine, possono essere puniti dai consumatori in un futuro quanto mai prossimo.    

Marketing of curves and its ethical implications

For years, fashion marketing has been under fire because of the prototype it imposes: unnaturally skinny girls, whose thin bodies are perfect to exalt the dresses they wear and not to divert the attention from them. Anyway, fashion has been accused to induce women to pursue this ideal of thinness and to make them insecure and even unhealthy, causing an increasing number of food disorders - such as anorexia and bulimia. Confronted with these heavenly models - whose bodies are far from "real women", with their extra pounds, cellulite and love handles - women get convinced that those are the perfect bodies, the ones that should be pursued and imitated.

One controversial example in this sense is Victoria's Secret's campaign launched in 2014, known as The Perfect Body, in which some models of this worldwide famous brand pose in their underwear. The controversial slogan was heavily criticised and a petition was signed aimed at making the campaign end. 

Marketing of curves: Victoria's Secret unethical campaing (2014)

This campaign is ethically debatable, since it conveys the sexist idea that only a skinny body could be considered perfect and that this is the ideal that men and women must adopt. Moreover, the exaltation of thinness has been considered unethical because it may lead women - especially teens, that are more sensible to advertising and fashion - to get less and less healthy in the name of a questionable image of beauty.

In the last years, anyway, the tendency is trading places: even if the icon of thinness in fashion dies hard, in the last decade the curvy trend is getting more and more powerful, invading the field of fashion and catwalks. 

Social networks and magazines have been invaded by these curvy icons, promoted as a new icon of beauty, closer to the reality and to common women.

In the field of fashion, even the 42 (Italian size) is considered curvy, but step by step even objectively fat women started becoming fashion icons.

The most famous example in this sense is Ashley Graham, 27 years old, that - with her 175 cm and her 77 kg - is becoming the queen of curvy pride.

Marketing of curves: Ashley Graham

If curvy movement started mainly to fight the anorexic trend dominating catwalks with its antithetical marketing message - that female body is always beautiful, that does not have to follow a prototype and that does not have to sacrifice its most femenine shade in the name of thinness and perfection - then it started promoting another prototype: the buttery - or even fat - woman, whose sensuality is unbridled. Curvy marketing is inundating every field, from fashion to press, from cinema to music - I bet everyone knows the song All About That Bass by Meghan Trainor, which can be considered the hymn of the curvy pride.

Marketing of curves: All About That Bass

It is the exact opposite of the old - but still alive - skinny icon of fashion, but doesn't it have ethical implications as well? Is promoting fatty women more ethical than showing skinny ones? Is fat really healthier, especially in this era of consumerism where obesity is a dramatic health concern?

The marketing of the curves: obesity incidence in the US

I want you to think about these possibile ethical issues and I would be glad if you left your opinion about this debated topic in the comments. 

Coop and ethical marketing to kids: an Italian example of responsibility

I was in a supermarket, walking down a corridor dedicated to croissants, biscuits and snacks. I was greedily glancing at some snacks  full of chocolate and coconut, intended to leave them on the shelf – it’s swimsuit season, dammit! – while I noticed the following symbol printed on the box:

Coop and ethical marketing to kids: labels

“Moderate consumption for kids”

This thing impressed me positively, since it is a good example of honest and ethical marketing towards kids. It is not profit-oriented at all: some parents, reading it, could avoid buying the product or, at least, drastically reduce their consumption of it. It is an act of responsibility. 

I searched on the Internet some information about this symbol and the philosophy of the company producing these products, Coop. Coop (abbreviation of Consumers’ Cooperative) is a system of Italian consumers’ cooperatives which runs the largest supermarket chain in Italy. Coop was created to buy and resell high-quality goods at fair prices to its members and to consumers in general, striving for biological goods and for food safety. 

More precisely, Coop is committed to offer healthy products to kids, dedicating to them tailored goods and launching informative campaigns in order to support parents’ in their buying decisions and to fight children obesity. Researches show that, in Italy, 22.9% of children between 8-9 years old are overweight and 11.1% are obese. One of the main causes is having wrong eating habits: too many animal proteins, too many sugars and fats, and food with a very limited fiber content, for a total caloric intake that is too high for children. Vegetables are not generally appreciated by kids and parents, instead of educating their children to eat them, they simply get over it. 

Coop and ethical marketing to kids: fighting obesity

For these reasons, Coop launched a project supervised by ECOG (European Childhood Obesity Group) and SIO (Società Italiana dell’Obesità), in order to sensitize families about this problem and to offer their children some healthy product created expressly for them. The campaign is called Club 4-10 (the children ages to which the campaign is mainly dedicated) and it has some goals. First, the increase of information, in order to guide parents in their buying decisions: the symbol presented above is one of the main measures adopted, an immediate and clever way to dissuade parents offering these products to their kids on a daily basis. Then, the creation of a line of products called Club 4-10 Coop addressed to kids between 4 and 10 years old and nutritionally balanced, and of another one called Crescendo Coop (Growing Up Coop), dedicated to children up to three years old, which uses organic ingredients and which avoids salt and sugar, unnecessary in the early stages of children’s life. Finally, Coop has a website entirely dedicated to this topic and campaign: if you are interested in it, just have a look!

Coop and ethical marketing to kids: Club 4-10

I praise this responsible approach to kids and I strongly suggest consumers to reward this kind of behaviour: doing so, in the end this will become the only conduct admitted and “unethical companies” will gradually disappear.

Beverage companies and marketing to kids: PepsiCo's case

Marketing to kids and ethics: dichotomy or duo? In PepsiCo, it seems that the two concepts are not antithetical, indeed they coexist successfully. In 2015, PepsiCo was honoured with the World’s Most Ethical Company title in the food and beverages field by Ethisphere, together with Kellogg’s, Ingredion Incorporated, the Hershey Company and the Italian brand illycaffé. 

Beverage companies: PepsiCo's case

Their marketing philosophy is based on transparency, and on their website they claim:

«More and more, consumers want and expect clear product nutrition information that allows them to make dietary decisions to meet their individual and family nutritional needs.Providing that information is our goal and, in many geographic markets, our nutrition labelling practices go beyond local requirements, with additional information to support consumer choice».

On its packaging, PepsiCo provides the key nutrition information – calorie count and key nutrients - its customers need in order to make aware dietary choices. 

Moreover, PepsiCo has a special commitment towards children: the company ensures that

«only products that meet our strict science-based nutrition criteria are advertised to any audience made up of more than 35 percent children under the age of 12». 

The products advertised, as said, respect the PepsiCo’s Global Nutrition Criteria for Advertising to Children. Moreover, PepsiCo promotes healthy eating habits among children, directing sales to schools focusing on water, juice, milk and low-calorie beverages. In 2013, PepsiCo implemented a policy according to which the company refused to buy advertising in programs addressing for more than the 35% children under the age of 12. 

On the contrary, the report Sugary Drinks FACTS 2014, released by the Yale Rudd Centre for Food Policy & Obesity in 2014, claims that beverages companies have still a log way to go to improve the responsibility of their marketing practices – especially when addressing kids. Jennifer Harris, Yale Rudd Center’s director of marketing initiatives and lead author of the report, commented:

«Despite promises by major beverage companies to be part of the solution in addressing childhood obesity, our report shows that companies continue to market their unhealthy products directly to children and teens. They have also rapidly expanded marketing in social and mobile media that are popular with young people, but much more difficult for parents to monitor.» 

Beverage companies and marketing to kids: Sugary Drinks FACTS 

The report shows some improvements: children between 6 and 11 years old viewed fewer TV ads (-39%) in 2013 than in 2010, sugary drinks advertising on website primarily visited by young people declined by 72% and Coca-Cola Co., Dr Pepper Snapple Group and PepsiCo provide more nutritional information on their packaging and on their websites. 

On the other hand, the report found out that preschoolers saw 39% more ads for PepsiCo's sugary drinks in 2013 than in 2010 (25% for kids between 6 and 11 years old). These data are in contrast with PepsiCo's ethical statement, and a representative of the company defined the findings 'misleading' and claimed: 

«the truth is that PepsiCo is, and will continue to be, a responsible marketer, particularly when it comes to children.»

The American Beverage Association – an industry trade group – object that the researchers of Sugary Drinks FACTS 2014 report do «not adequately differentiate between marketing to children, who are widely viewed as a special audience needing particular care, and marketing to teens and general audiences.» 

In conclusion, the food and beverage industry is a field in which irresponsible marketing practices targeting children are really popular. It is positive that companies are trying to eradicate these unethical techniques from their marketing strategy, but more efforts are required in order to protect children from unhealthy eating - and drinking - habits. Anyway, we cannot deny that companies like PepsiCo are striving to redefine their marketing conduct towards children, in order to act more responsibly and with a focus on their wellness, even if the attention towards children's health should be more and more enhanced. 

YouTube Kids and marketing to children: is it ethical?

YouTube Kids is a free Google app entirely designed for children, since both its contents and its structure – easy to navigate – are kids-friendly. On YouTube Kids, children can find age-appropriate videos, channels and playlists: the app features popular children’s programming, plus content from filmmakers, teachers, and creators all around the world. 

YouTube Kids is a children-oriented app: what is displayed is family-friendly, so parents should feel safe about what their kids are watching on it; moreover, they have the possibility to control what they are searching for and the amount of time they spend on YouTube Kids, in order to limit it. 

YouTube Kids

This initiative has really positive aspects, since it is a good way to entertain kids with shows that are appropriate for their age and sensibility, and – moreover – it is free. On the contrary, an ethical issue has risen about the ads: YouTube Kids displays advertisements that – as some US consumers group wrote to the Federal Trade Commission – blur the line between commercials and programming. As Consumer Affairs reported, the practices under fire are:

• Intermixing advertising and programming in ways that deceive young children, who, unlike adults, lack the cognitive ability to distinguish between the two;

• Featuring numerous “branded channels” for McDonald’s, Barbie, Fisher-Price, and other companies, which are little more than program-length commercials;

• Distributing so-called “user-generated” segments that feature toys, candy, and other products without disclosing the business relationships that many of the producers of these videos have with the manufacturers of the products, a likely violation of the FTC’s Endorsement Guidelines.

Below, we can watch a typical example of “unboxing” video, in which YouTube users film themselves while opening some boxes full of toys. In the video, McDonald’s, Barbie and Star Wars toys are promoted at the same time, even if it definitely does not look like a commercial. 

Sure, adults may recognize the commercial aim of the video, but for children is not that easy. They are not mature and critical enough to understand that the video is just trying to convey their preferences towards a specific brand. That is way some US consumers groups complained to the Federal Trade Commission, accusing YouTube Kids of misleading advertising, because ads are mixed with contents and normal programming. 

The regulations about TV commercials aimed at kids are really strict: in 1990, the Federal Communications Commission issued the Children’s Television Act, which encourages and enforces the presence of programs designed to serve the educational and informational needs of children, limits TV commercials dedicated to them (to 10.5 minutes per hour on weekends and 12 minutes per hour on weekdays), and prohibits program-length commercials, adverts not separated by the program. 

The last point is particularly crucial for the topic we are dealing with, since YouTube Kids commercials often look like programs, the lines between ads and programming are blurred, and that is the reason why customers are protesting. The Federal Communications Commission does not control digital media – that is why consumers demanded the Federal Trade Commission’s intervention, but consumer groups claim that digital media should respect the same norms of television when dealing with marketing to children. Essentially, YouTube Kids is like a TV channel: why shouldn’t it respect the same norms? The FTC complaint, first organized by Georgetown Law School’s Institute for Public Representation, has later been supported by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the Center for Digital Democracy, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Children Now, the Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Consumer Watchdog, and Public Citizen.

Google – when the FTC complaint was filed – defended YouTube Kids, underlining that mature contents are filtered, that the app is totally kids-friendly, that parents have the possibility to monitor what their kids are watching and that, moreover, the presence of ads is vital to keep it free. 

YouTube Kids and children

What do you think about the case? Do you believe that kids should be protected by these kinds of ads, because of their vulnerability and their difficulty in recognizing hidden advertising messages? Or do you share Google’s position, thinking that the commercials displayed by YouTube Kids are not avoidable and that they do not manipulate children, since the contents are kids-friendly?

Carlotta Neuenschwander

McDonald's VS Italian pizza: an ethical issue

Happy Meal VS pizza: the new McDonald's spot challenges the traditional Italian pizza, with a subtle, insidious message: that McDonald's Happy Meal suits children's needs better than pizza.

As you can see in the spot, an Italian family is sitting in a pizzeria - of course, the place is presented as gloomy and unpleasant; the waiter arrives and asks the kid which kind of pizza he prefers. Determined, he replies: "Happy Meal!" and the spot closes with these words: "Your son has no doubts, Happy Meal", while the family eats happily in a full-of-light McDonald's shop. 
Then, the voice adds: "Always at 4€", leveraging its low price to attract also parents, and not just children. Pizza margherita's price, in fact, is often higher, especially in big cities.

This spot could be the perfect example of unethical food marketing to children, in which an unhealthy diet is presented as the best option for kids. 
Marketers' are really clever: also the appearence of the pizzeria is not casually chosen; they present a dingy, old place, not really attractive to kids. On the contrary, McDonald's shop looks bright and kids-friendly.  
McDonald's may object that Happy Meal has many possible combinations and not all of them are unhealthy. The choices are:

• One main dish, chosen among hamburger, McToast and McNuggets
• A side dish, chosen among French fries and carrots
• A soft drink (Coca Cola, Coca Cola Zero, Fanta, Sprite, Peach tea or Lemon tea, still or fizzy water, biological peach juice)
• A dessert (Parmesan cheese, biological yogurt or fruit)

Each combination has a very different calorie count: from 254 kcal (if I choose McNuggets, carrots, water and fruit) to 733 kcal (McToast, fried potatoes, a fizzy drink and Parmesan). But let's face the reality: which kid goes to McDonald's to eat carrots and biological peach juice? 
A pizza margherita grants a calorie count of 800 kcal ca., but its ingredients are far healthier than the "junky" version of the Happy Meal: it is composed of 70% of carbohidrates, 20% of proteins, 10% of fatty acids, vitamins A and C, iron and calcium. Moreover, kids usually do not eat the entire pizza, often they just eat half of it: so, the calorie intake is 400 kcal.
It is definitely healthier than a Happy Meal composed by a McToast, French fries, Coke and Parmesan cheese, so it may be considered as an act of a marketing irresponsibility to create a TV advertisement aimed at children encouraging them to choose Happy Meal instead of pizza. Let's keep in mind that McDonald's food has been proved unhealthy by many documentaries, like the famous Super Size Me, in which the independent filmmaker Mogan Spurlock - from February 2nd to March 1st, 2003 - only ate at McDonald's and brushed against death.

Pizza margherita is candidate to become UNESCO world heritage and a spot which questions its healthy nature is an outrage to this traditional Italian dish. 

Neapolitan people, particularly touched by McDonald's misleading commercial, reacted with this parodic video:

In this ironical video, they offer a Happy Meal to a child, who reacts asking "Daddy, what do I do with this sleaze? I want pizza!". Then the voice says: "Your son has no doubts: pizza a portafoglio. 1, 1.5€ maximum".

Some people may say that eating pizza every day is not good for children's health, too. I totally agree, but if I had to choose between offering pizza or a junky Happy Meal to a kid, as the child in the spot, I would have no doubts.


Carlotta Neuenschwander

For a Lush, ethical World

Virtuous cases of marketing ethics: that was the topic of my latest post, which was dedicated to a French brand – Michel et Augustin. Today, I am going to talk about another example of ethical firm, operating in the cosmetics industry: Lush.

Actually, Lush does not like to be defined as an “ethical firm”: companies respecting the environment, including its inhabitants – people and animals -  should be considered normal businesses, and not particularly virtuous ones.

This company is not massively advertised, but I am pretty sure that you will easily associate its name with the sweet and inviting scent that comes from its shops. 

The perfume is so strong because Lush chose not to package most of its products: the company's slogan is we love it Naked, and its claim is that it is more concentrated on what is inside the package than on the package itself. Moreover, since Lush has a rigorous Green Policy, it prefers avoiding packages in order not to pollute the environment. Lush’s products that cannot avoid being packaged are wrapped up in recycled – and recyclable – materials.  

Lush's naked products

Because of its “green philosophy”, the firm patronises suppliers respecting the environment and animals, and operating locally: «we work closely with our transportation providers to source low-impact and ethically responsible fuels for moving materials and finished products around the globe», the company states in its website. 

Fresh ingredients form the basis of Lush's production process: the company avoids synthetic alternatives and preservatives, preferring fresh fruits, flowers and vegetables bought in farmers’ markets and flower shops. This guarantees the naturalness of Lush’s products, coherently with its environment-friendly standards. Moreover, its products strictly avoid animal testing.

Lush's ethical principles

The company feels the importance of the truthfulness of its message: «in 2011, we started reporting our environmental performance on an annual basis to ensure that our policy delivers on what it promises», it claims. Lush wants to put in practice the beliefs it claims it has, and it seems to be good at doing that: that is why the founder – Mark Constantine - has been awarded with the Observer Ethical Award 2014 as Best in Business. 

The marketing message is honest, transparent – Lush's motto is we mean what we say, and the quality of its products is traced: moreover, its marketing strategy is unusual, since Lush chose not to advertise its brand – e.g. on magazines and TV. Lush is only promoted online – through its website and social networks – and in-store: according to it, a good, qualitative product is the best kind of advertising. 

An aspect of its ethical commitment is charitable giving: 100% of the purchase price of its lotion Charity Pot goes towards supporting humanitarian, environmental and animal rights causes locally and around the world. 

Lush's ethical commitment: the Charity Pot

I am glad to talk about these firms, which are ethical and successful at the same time: they do not need a lot of advertising to triumph, they do not manipulate potential customers with deceptive messages, they do not promote unhealthy attitudes to obtain profits and they do not puff up their products describing them as the “best” ones: quality and respect for the environment – and people in it – are their banner, and that’s the true spirit of ethical marketing and business ethics.  

Carlotta Neuenschwander