LHF uncertainty continues as UK media industry urges government to exclude brands from ban
As the UK media industry awaits delayed guidance over the scope of the less-healthy food (LHF) ad ban, the uncertainty has begun impacting Q4 media planning, according to planners and trade body leaders.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) — the regulators responsible with enforcing the ban — announced in January that they needed to revise their prior guidance to advertisers after receiving legal advice that the law as passed makes no direct reference to brand advertising, which was previously thought to have been outside the scope of the ad ban.
CAP explained that “for advertisers, our revised guidance is likely to clarify that – even if your ad does not explicitly refer to or feature an LHF product – it may still be restricted under law, where persons in the UK could reasonably be expected to be able to identify your ad as being for an LHF product or LHF products.”
One source indicated to The Media Leader that the ASA and CAP are currently aiming to deliver updated guidance by mid-May.
However, multiple trade body leaders speaking to The Media Leader said they do not believe it is likely the regulator will sway from the legal interpretation that brand advertising could be within scope of the ban as it is currently written.
This is despite a statement made earlier this month by Ashley Dalton MP, the parliamentary under-secretary of state for public health and education, in which she reaffirmed prior assertions that “the Government’s view remains that pure brand advertising is not in scope of this policy”.
She explained: “This is because the legislation only restricts adverts that could reasonably be considered to be for identifiable less healthy products, and not adverts that could be reasonably understood to be advertising brands.”
The Advertising Association, in a joint statement with Channel 4, ISBA, ITV, Paramount, and STV, welcomed Dalton’s statement, arguing that “the ASA as the relevant front-line regulator must now accept the very clear purpose and effect of this legislation”.
In a slide deck presented by IAB UK to agency leaders earlier this month and viewed by The Media Leader, the IAB advised the “statement [is] unlikely to override the legal advice provided to the regulator.”
As one trade body leader put it: “The government’s intent doesn’t marry up with the wording of the legislation”.
Further delay needed?
Sinead Coogan Jobes, the IAB UK’s recently-appointed head of policy and public affairs, told The Media Leader: “While the government’s statement reasserting its view that brand advertising falls out of the scope of the upcoming LHF ad ban was encouraging, it is not a solution on its own to the uncertainty our members face. Businesses urgently need iron-clad assurances on the status of brand ads to properly prepare for 1 October, and the clearest way to achieve that is for the government to explicitly exempt brand ads from the restrictions in the law itself.
“With the introduction of the ban now less than six months away, it’s imperative that the government takes action to ensure that it is put into practice as it was originally intended. Leaving it open to interpretation at this stage will only further damage the UK advertising industry as regulators grapple with ambiguity.”
CAP to revise LHF guidance over lack of clarity on brand advertising
Assuming the government does not simply plough on with the legislation as written, alternative courses of action could include amending the law to clarify its meaning or passing further legislation that explicity exempts brand advertising from the law.
It is unclear how long any such process would take, and whether it could be accomplished in time for brands and media owners to make adjustments in advance of Q4, let alone by October’s scheduled implementation. Any amendments or new bills would require debates and consultations, all of which requires time — at least six months, by one trade body leader’s estimate.
A potential outcome would thus be to further postpone the ban in order to give time for such options to play out.
This would not be the first time the ban was delayed; following lobbying from the IAB and other trade bodies in 2022, the law was delayed to autumn 2025 after originally being slated to come into effect in early 2023.
It is unclear whether the government would consider further delay, especially as the LHF ban was the only direct mention of advertising in last summer’s King’s Speech, wherein Charles declared the government’s intention to “legislate to restrict advertising of junk food to children along with the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks to children”.
Brands turn to audio, DOOH seeking certainty
In the meantime, brands, their agenices, and media owners have been grappling with uncertainty by taking a “wait-and-see approach”, according to Ian Daly, head of AV investment at independent agency the7stars.
Unfortunately, it is soon at the point where brands looking to plan Q4 ad campaigns can’t simply “wait and see” much longer.
Steve Taylor, head of strategy at IPG Mediabrands agency Mediahub, said it is best for brands to “set up for the worst case scenario now”.
“What brands can’t afford to do is ‘ostrich’ it and hope the government has a complete change of heart,” he said. “It won’t.”
While Daly indicated most ads won’t officially be committed until the end of August, brands are already planning for Q4 and Christmas.
Given the uncertainty around whether brand advertising is within scope of the ban, he told The Media Leader he would be “surprised” if brands with any less-healthy food products commited to any advertising investment for Q4 until guidance is released.
“If we get guidance in the next month, we’ll be okay to re-plan,” Daly said.
In the IAB’s slide deck, the industry body suggested that, because digital OOH (DOOH) has been explicitly exempted from the ban, the media channel “will be absolutely critical for many brands” come October.
This is also true of audio, which has also been effectively exempted from the ban. Radio is entirely out of scope and digital audio and podcasts, while within scope, were explicitly exempted within the legislation.
However, the inexactitude of the law means there is still a lack of clarity around what could fall within scope of the ban for those media channels. For example, it’s unclear whether LHF advertising against audio brands’ multimedia output, such as video podcasts, would be disallowed.
Still, two likely beneficiaries of the broader uncertainty include Global and Bauer. Apart from being leaders in UK audio, both also own sizeable OOH businesses, with Bauer completing its acquisition of Clear Channel’s UK business earlier this month.
Spotify is also already seeing increased interest from brands potentially subject to the LHF ad ban. In an interview with The Media Leader last week, Spotify’s UK and Northern Ireland head of sales Ed Couchman said the streaming giant is “seeing [LHF brands] really lean into us,” including the likes of Mondelez International and Mars.
Price inflation could spike
On the other hand, media channels that are not exempted from the law could be facing a sharp decline in ad revenue if brand advertising from LHF brands is off the table under the ASA and CAP’s guidance.
One media planner told The Media Leader they had attempted to model the impact the ban could have on the TV market if all brand advertising was included within scope of the ban.
Under that “most pessimistic” scenario, the TV market could contract by as much as 25% if no brands with LHF products could do brand advertising through the medium, according to this planner.
In response, TV ads could see price inflation up to 60%, depending on whether broadcasters would look to compensate the loss of ad supply by charging higher rates for other advertisers.
Price inflation is also likely to occur for the post-21:00 broadcast timeslot. Under the ban, LHF brands would be allowed to advertise their products on TV in the late window. The expected influx of supply for a timeslot with limited inventory would mean broadcasters could charge substantially more to advertise during the night.
Another trade body leader warned that losing major food and drink clients would result in a “lose-lose for everyone” — brands would lose the ability to reach wide audiences and media owners would be unable to financially support creative programmes and journalism if they had a sharp drop in ad revenue.
This would particularly impact public-service broadcasters that the government has a vested interest in supporting.
The timing is inconvenient as brands’ uncertainty is also being compounded by wider macroeconomic instability brought on by US president Donald Trump’s tariff plan, which has already impacted media investment and business confidence.
As Taylor told The Media Leader: “We don’t just need a plan, but a back-up plan and a back-up plan for the back-up plan, as well as some very understanding media owners.”