Besieged industry tightens rules
Julian Lee
Sydney Morning Herald
April 17, 2008
CHANGES to the way
companies can market to children - including a ban on
the sexualisation of children in ads - were unveiled
yesterday as the marketing industry faces a battle to
preserve its system of self-regulation.
Pester power, the placement of ads in media deemed
unsuitable for children, and ads for such products as
alcoholic lipsticks, were also included in the changes
to the Australian Association of National Advertisers'
code regulating advertising to children.
For the first time, advertising has been expanded to
include all marketing communications, including samples
given away at events and websites owned by companies and
used as marketing vehicles for their products. These do
not fit into the narrow definition of ads because no
money has changed hands.
The association's chairman, Ian Alwill, hailed the
changes as demonstrating the $35 billion industry's
"responsible approach to marketing".
Mr Alwill, the most senior marketer at Nestle, said
there were a "lot of floating issues around" and that
the industry needed to make some changes to keep in step
with changing community and Government attitudes.
But he acknowledged the changes were unlikely to silence
critics of the advertising industry's self-regulatory
approach. Complaints would continue to be assessed by
the board of the Advertising Standards Bureau.
"We will always have critics … they are good to have, to
prick your conscience," he said. "We are never going to
keep everybody happy; that's almost impossible. We have
done as much as we can do to regulate our own behaviour.
Some will say not enough … others will say it is too
much."
The industry is defending its position in a Senate
investigation into alcohol marketing, and the issue of
junk food marketing to children and its alleged links to
childhood obesity would "still hang around until people
are happy", he said.
He said claims made around a company's response to
climate change and sustainability would also be
important.
"There are more issues on the table than there have been
for a while and we will deal with them as they come
along. And in 10 years' time I dare say there will be
some we won't have thought about."
But critics said the revised code did little to address
areas such as the use of premiums - giveaway toys such
as those in McDonald's Happy Meals.
They also pointed out that there was a clause
prohibiting pester power in the previous code.
"This really changes absolutely nothing," Elizabeth
Handsley, of Young Media Australia, said. "We are
struggling to find an ad that would be affected by their
clause on the sexualisation of children."
Clare Hughes, the food policy officer at Choice, said
the new code did little to blunt the effect of toys
given away as a part of meal deals. While it might
restrict companies from putting a time limit on the
promotion, which encouraged rapid repeat purchases, they
were still able to market the toys that come with meal
deals as collectable series.
As for pester power, she said: "The very nature of
advertising is to stimulate demand."