Ofcom Bites Back As Industry In A Spin Over Junk Ad Proposals
Ofcom has defended today’s announcement that the communications regulator would introduce new wide-ranging restrictions on junk food advertising aimed at children, after being attacked by various broadcasters and health bodies.
Ofcom’s chief executive, Ed Richards, has said that the new restrictions will cost the industry £210 million less than a total ban. After this morning’s announcement, the media regulatory body has been attacked by all sides, with no parties seemingly happy at the news.
“We are dismayed that Ofcom as an evidence-based regulator has become vulnerable to pressure and has departed from the first of its stated regulatory objectives, developed after extensive research, which is ‘to reduce significantly the exposure of younger children to HFSS advertising’,” said Andrew Brown, director general of the Advertising Association.
“The advertising industry has long accepted that new restrictions on food advertising to younger children are necessary, but only as part of a much wider response to the obesity crisis that promotes healthy lifestyles.”
He added: “Ofcom appear to have steered a middle way between polarised viewpoints in which satisfying opinion has become at least as important as meeting the needs of evidence.”
The Food Advertising Unit gave a mixed response to Ofcom’s decision. Sue Eustace, director of Public Affairs, said: “Ofcom has moved the goal-posts from its original regulatory objective in March, which was based on extensive research it had carried out, by extending volume and scheduling restrictions to programmes of direct appeal to under 16s, thus intruding into adult airtime. We fear there could be a knock-on effect on levels of investment in high-quality UK-produced programming”.
However the FAU today welcomed Ofcom’s acceptance of the industry’s tough content proposals, which would prohibit the use of licensed characters, celebrities, promotional offers and nutritional claims. It also welcomed Ofcom’s agreement that their continued focus should be on targeting primary school children.
The FAU also welcomed Ofcom’s continued rejection of the pre-9pm watershed ban demanded by campaign groups as being disproportionate in the balance between economic impact and social benefit.
Suzanne Edmond, public affairs manager, said: “The industry is disappointed that Ofcom, as an independent and evidence-based regulator, appears to have been compromised by an orchestrated campaign from consumerist organisations which has created significant media and political pressures.
“This debate has been conditioned by emotive language used by campaign groups about ‘junk foods’ and misses the real issues which are about bad diets and inactive lifestyles.”
Mary Creagh MP has expressed her deep disappointment at the proposals. “I am extremely disappointed that Ofcom has not followed the advice of health experts and campaigners and imposed a pre-watershed ban,” shae said.
“Banning junk food advertising before 9pm is the only way to stop junk food advertising to children. It would have been a vital step towards tackling the time bomb of childhood obesity. Ofcom have dithered in bringing forward proposals, and delayed their decision from July. Their decision is quite simply the wrong call.”
She added: “90% of food advertising is for foods high in fat, sugar and salt. Of course junk food advertising isn’t solely to blame for the obesity crisis, but the link between advertising and children’s food choices is clear and proven. This ban was necessary because advertisers and food manufacturers simply cannot be trusted to self-regulate.
“These watered-down recommendations simply will not work,” she continued. “The programmes most watched by children are family shows like Coronation Street and Eastenders. Ofcom are ignoring this by ruling out a 9pm watershed and offering tame alternatives. Under-9s will still be exposed to thousands of junk food adverts every year – whereas a pre-9pm watershed ban would have meant they saw almost none.”
Five’s chief executive, Jane Lighting, takes an opposing view. “This is a tough decision and we are disappointed it is even more draconian than the stringent measures that Ofcom originally proposed,” she said.
“Five has a continuing commitment to broadcasting children’s programmes both for our Milkshake! pre-school audience and for older children. However, these restrictions will deny us substantial revenue and make the economics of producing children’s programmes a lot more difficult in the future. The long-term future of UK produced children’s programming outside the BBC is bleak.”
The IPA has also responded to Ofcom’s new restrictions, saying they are disproportionate and will have no impact on the obesity crisis facing the UK, but will have an impact on over 90% of all current food and drink product advertising which currently funds commercial programming.
It is disappointed that despite accepted evidence that advertising has less than a 2% impact of children’s food preference, Ofcom appears to have bowed to political pressure.
IPA legal director Marina Palomba, said: “We are very concerned by this new change of direction by Ofcom. What this means in practical terms is that a product such as Marmite, which is over 100 years old and full of micro nutrients, will be banned because it exceeds the salt level permitted by the scientifically flawed nutritional profiling scheme adopted.
“In the Ofcom press conference today, Ed Richards also drew attention to the fact that the advertising and broadcast industries proposed package did not go far enough. The IPA view is that it was absolutely proportionate and notes that Ofcom has accepted the industry’s recommendations on content.”
Ed Richards said: “I am not surprised health groups don’t understand, but broadcasters are familiar with how to apply the index and to make a judgement on a programme’s appeal to children. They have used the technique in relation to gambling and alcohol.
“The restrictions are the best way of targeting intervention of these ads at children. The consequences of a blanket ban on the budgets of broadcasters is extremely large indeed – in excess of £250 million. That is disproportionate and we have to balance that to ensure we have high quality programmes across the UK.”
Ofcom intends to review the effectiveness and scope of the new restrictions in autumn 2008, one year after the full implementation of the new content rules.
Ofcom: 020 7981 3040 www.ofcom.org.uk