Don't shoot the advertising

The Advertising Association recently held an excellent debate at the House of Commons where it offered, somewhat ironically, the motion 'Advertising is bad for your diet'. The proposition was heavily defeated, but sadly this was something of an empty victory as the voters were almost exclusively members of the advertising and marketing community. Elsewhere in the Palace of Westminster the view had already taken hold that advertising is bad for children's diets, and legal restrictions on the freedom to advertise food brands to children will soon be imposed by Ofcom.

Along with a number of other people in marketing I regard this as a sad outcome because advertising in itself is not bad for anyone's diet. Everyone agrees that there is a problem in wealthy countries with increasing levels of obesity among children. But there is no evidence that this is caused by advertising. Indeed in Sweden and Quebec, where advertising to children has not been allowed for most of the past two decades, there is no discernible difference in the level of obesity among children. Endless surveys have been conducted on who thinks what about obesity, but most marketers would agree that these two examples offer the only true market test of the effect of advertising.

NO SIMPLE ANSWERS

So why has advertising been curtailed? I am reminded of Stanley Holloway's monologue about Albert and the lion. Albert, you may recall, had been eaten while on a visit to the zoo and his mother was vexed, 'Someone's got to be summonsed, so that were decided upon.' Politicians and campaigning organisations need to blame someone for obesity and advertising has taken the rap. Those who have campaigned against advertising in this instance have managed to produce a successfully simplistic argument by muddling up no less than three things: the role of advertising within the whole marketing mix, the role of individual foods within a complete diet, and the role of diet within the lifestyle of children today.

Martin Glenn wrote an excellent piece in this journal last year on the need for a proper marketing strategy for tackling obesity, and deep in the bowels of the Department of Health there is someone tasked with developing 'social marketing' strategies for the key health objectives the government  has set – including obesity. He or she and one or two others in the Civil Service have realised that real marketing, whether for a brand or a cause, requires a more in-depth approach than simply turning on an advertising campaign. And solving this particular problem will require more than turning advertising off.

WHAT CAN ADVERTISING DO?

The myth that advertising is a hidden persuader that makes us all, and especially children, powerless automatons is a persistent one in campaigning circles. But those of us who have toiled in the cause of brands for any length of time would be more likely to agree with Professor Ehrenberg's definitive view that 'advertising can increase awareness of a product, it can encourage trial, and it can increase post-purchase satisfaction but there is little evidence that it can strongly manipulate or persuade'.

Advertising people are often brilliant at simplifying complex problems, but ironically no one in the advertising business seems to have come up with a simple argument that defends the freedom to advertise. Yet it needs a simple sound-bite or a touch of Maurice Saatchi's 'one word equity' to survive the next round of attacks that in an increasingly neurotic age will surely come.

The campaigners on the other side have certainly got the one word equity message. Speaking out against advertising in the diet debate was an organisation called Sustain. It speaks up for organic food and against junk food – which means just about any food that is advertised but is not organic. Virtually all advertised food brands from Mars to McDonald's have now been successfully categorised by the likes of Sustain as junk. Like many Archers listeners, I was deeply saddened about Tom Archer's sausages losing their organic status when he was forced to go into business with his horrible Uncle Brian, but junk food can be organic and organic food can be junk. It just depends how many sausages you eat.

When on the ASA Council, I learned that there is no claimable taste or nutritional benefit for organic food. It makes a useful premium for hard-pressed farmers, and no doubt makes the eaters feel more virtuous, but it is one of the many curiosities of the obesity debate that a higher standard of truth is required for brand advertising than for NGO press releases. But over time the truly truthful arguments will win and there should be freedom for Sustain and others to campaign both for organic food and against what they think is junk food if they can produce persuasive arguments. But it is not right that they should be allowed to stop commercial organisations having the freedom to advertise their brands.

In my lifetime, which stretches back to the end of the Second World War, and the last days of rationing, I have seen consumer choice expand enormously and I believe this is a great privilege for us all. Responding to customer choice is not only the best way to run a business, letting individual citizens choose as much as possible for themselves is also the best way to run society. Consumers should have freedom of choice and full access to information about the consequences of their choices. Children should be taught about nutrition in schools and that freedom of choice is a privilege that also has responsibilities.

FACING NEW CHALLENGES

I want to see health campaigners using the creative skills of the advertising business to get their message across, as the National Obesity Forum has with its striking image of a child's head on an old man's obese body. And I want to see the new team at the Advertising Association developing some sound-bites about the benefits of advertising. Advertising is a medium that encourages choice and competition. Its messages are already strictly controlled by the ASA to ensure that they are socially responsible. Advertising can allow new products to be launched that are healthier or more environmentally sound, just as it can offer those that fattening or selfish. It cannot make anybody buy anything.

As the pessimists in society become ever more excited about health, climate change and consumer debt, the Advertising Association must campaign to allow freedom for all sides to put their message across. And it must use all its lobbying skills to ensure that the government does not panic in the face of the next media mob and shoot the advertising.