Are public information messages being confused with marketing messages?
Eat less fat. Exercise more. Remember your five-a-day. Are the days of finger wagging from the government long gone? Social marketing is recognised as an effective tool in bringing about behavioural change, particularly among groups whose behaviour is the hardest to alter.
But it now appears there’s a third way – government lifestyle campaigns in close partnership with business, namely the Change4Life programme, whose Business4Life partners include the likes of Pepsico and McCain. These companies may “carry the brand logo and campaign messaging” – and while there are restrictions for on-pack use, such companies can refer to themselves as Change4Life partners.
At the same time as the government has teamed up with commercial players, the UK has seen over-the-counter weight-loss aids such as Alli come on to the market in the past year, with above-the-line campaigning alongside the usual diet products and slimming clubs. TV, billboards and magazines constantly remind consumers to adopt a healthy diet and lifestyle.
So has the line between public information messages and advertising in the health and diet sector become fundamentally blurred? And does this give rise to customer confusion and even open the door to commercial exploitation?
In other words, is all this campaigning about healthy living generating health – or wealth?
The main thrust of the Department of Health’s Change4Life campaign is working with families to exercise more and eat healthily, but Change4Life has been accused of forging some pretty dubious partnerships. Take Kellogg’s, a company that was roundly condemned last year by Which? magazine for the unacceptable levels of sugar in some of its products, including Coco Pops – a cereal that the US manufacturer has even been encouraging children to eat in the afternoons, with the advertising slogan “Ever thought of Coco Pops after school?”.
Then there’s the Wii Fit Plus – another seemingly unusual choice for a Change4Life partner, given that the NHS used to attack the video games industry for turning us into couch potatoes. In fact, the Center for Online Addiction in the US reports that growing numbers of people are seeking help for gaming addictions, including children. Pepsi Cola maker Pepsico is another curious Change4Life partner.
What are consumers to make of all this? Kellogg’s is a Change4Life partner, so its products must be healthy – right? Is it a great idea to spend money on a Wii? Many media commentators, including Janet Street-Porter, have argued that it’s ridiculous to suggest the involvement of fast food and junk food manufacturers can encourage consumers to participate in healthier lifestyles.
At best, claims Street-Porter, the consumer’s perception of what is normal and acceptable becomes completely lost. Her view would be backed by psychologists such as Dr Robert Cialdini, whose book Yes! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to be Persuasive, suggests that we’re more likely to adopt behaviours we think everyone else exhibits – in other words, if we think healthy people drink Pepsi, we’ll drink it and believe we’re healthy.
Maura Gillespie, head of policy and advocacy at the British Heart Foundation, points out that there are already plenty of opportunities for marketers to exploit people’s health concerns.
“In December, we carried out a survey that found that nine out of 10 mums are being misled by food companies exploiting parental concerns,” she says. “A good example is the use of the word ‘wholegrain’: 76 per cent of mums believe it means the product is healthy. But if you look at Nestlé Honey Shreddies – a product that claims ‘Wholegrain can keep your heart healthy and maintain a healthy body’ – an average 45g serving contains more sugar than a ring doughnut.”
Other Change4Life partners, such as online keep fit video company Thinq Fitness, are more closely allied with the health and dieting industry, yet this is beset with its own problems. Despite aggressive campaigns by diet companies, commentators on the diet industry such as Graham Park, author of Seven Secrets The Weight Loss Industry Will Never Tell You, suggest most diets have a failure rate as high as 95 per cent.
The Eating Disorders Association (BEAT) is concerned that if the government welcomes companies from this sector as partners and sponsors for its public health campaigns there is a danger of creating unnecessary public anxiety around diet and health – as it is 1.6 million people in Britain have an eating disorder. BEAT is also worried that the companies could target those anxious about their body image and yo-yo dieters, rather than the genuinely overweight.
“There are certain positive messages coming out of the Change4Life campaign, but to have the likes of slimming clubs and exercise promoters onboard does concern us. The recent case of a five-year‑old girl being told by her local authority that she was overweight, when she clearly wasn’t, emphasises just how careful the government needs to be,” says BEAT press officer Mary George.
Business4Life, the group of businesses contributing funds or services in kind to support the government’s Change4Life campaign, including Coca-Cola and Cadbury, haven’t even signed up to Change4Life’s “terms of engagement”. These include supporting the campaign goals of encouraging citizens to adopt a healthier diet and regular physical activity – one of the reasons Klim McPherson, chair of the National Heart Forum and visiting professor of public health epidemiology at Oxford University, concludes that “industry has had a bit of a free ride”.
A recent report by Which? consumer group questions whether the government’s aims are even realistic. Its survey of 2,012 adults last year concluded: “Although four out of five people want to follow a healthy diet, the current economic climate is yet another barrier to good intentions.”
Almost a quarter of the sample said the economic crisis had made healthier eating less of a priority, and that nearly three in five would buy more fruit and vegetables if they were cheaper. And who’s to say our lives are less healthy than in the past anyway? Even the Food Standards Agency admits it has no comparable data to measure whether we eat more fruit and vegetables now than prior to the launch of the government’s “Five a day” campaign in 2003 – and we are, after all, living longer.
Is all this campaigning alienating fat people? Could “fat-ism” be permeating British society? Campaigners from the Size Acceptance Movement say that 93 per cent of bosses would rather employ a thinner person than a fatter one, even if they are equally qualified. Kathryn Szrodecki, who campaigns on behalf of overweight people, says that fat people in Britain are stared at, pointed at, talked about and even attacked. In 2006, the British Medical Association’s magazine BMA News polled 225 doctors, 40 per cent of whom agreed that obese patients should be refused surgery on their joints if resources are limited.
The grey area between the private and public sectors around health messages doesn’t stop with Change4Life. Consider the ties between commercial sponsors and sports events – the Flora London Marathon and Cadbury backing the 2012 Olympics. Individual campaigns such as that of the Natural Hydration Council – a coalition between Danone, Nestlé and Highland Spring – use marketing messages in their campaigns that could easily be mistaken for public health information.
But Katy Websdell, media director at AW Media, believes the links between public information and commercially motivated promotion is no bad thing. “Research over recent years has proved that many consumers now place more faith in high-street brands than they do in GPs or politicians, so it makes sense, both financially and from the point of view of getting health messages across, for the government to turn to brands for message ‘sponsorship’,” she says.
Mark Stuart, head of research at The Chartered Institute of Marketing and CIM member, agrees. “In order to promote health messages it makes sense to use all the channels people see. Brands they know and trust and that they see every day are a good place to start. These campaigns have to be funded from somewhere and if private companies want to be involved it’s better than the money coming out of the public pot,” he says.
The Change4Life campaign includes £75m of government marketing over three years and a pledge of £200m in services and marketing support from a 33-strong coalition of Business4Life companies.
Stuart claims that most of the food manufacturers involved with Change4Life offer a range of foods and not exclusively unhealthy ones. “Moreover, if companies are Change4Life partners, they have a duty to promote the healthy side of their range and that has to be good.
“What the government is trying to do is influence us by giving us more information about how to make healthy choices. What they’re not trying to do is tell us what choices to make,” he says.
Stuart dismisses the idea that the Change4Life ideals and other government health campaigns such as “Five a day” may be never be more than aspirational notions for most. “Fresh and non-processed foods tend to be cheaper than processed foods,” he claims. “If you can afford meat, you can afford fish. Likewise, if you can afford sugary items, you can afford berries. As for the danger of fat people being alienated – it’s a fact that eating healthily and balancing diet with exercise is a good thing.”
The British Heart Foundation also believes poor families can afford to eat five portions of a variety of fruit and vegetables a day, and that the government recommendations about exercise are reasonable and achievable.
Jane Holdsworth, marketing director for Business4Life, points out that one of the major features of Change4Life is its tips‑based approach. “Nobody is saying you must eat five a day – it’s trying to say here are some easy ways to do it. The tone is inspiring rather than directional,” she says.
Federica Amati, who is currently researching social marketing in the health sector at Imperial College London, believes company backing makes absolute sense when it comes to government campaigns. “If you think about social marketing for quitting smoking, the government got Nicorette onboard – and Durex was involved in safe sex campaigns. We know both worked well.”
Becoming a partner to a government campaign such as Change4Life is no mean feat, says Jane Asscher, head of Change4Life partnerships. “We realise the approach to Change4Life is revolutionary, in that it brings together companies on a scale that we haven’t before,” she says. “But it is very carefully controlled, with very clear terms of engagement that organisations at a national level need to sign up to, and these have several components.”
Paul White, director of the Social Marketing Practice and CIM affiliate professional member, says we shouldn’t underestimate consumers’ attitudes. “Consumers are astute and know when companies are pulling the wool over their eyes. Conversely, if businesses help them, they’re more likely to stay with their product. Companies don’t do corporate social responsibilty for nothing so this approach isn’t as much of an ethical risk as some people are implying.”
to magazine
