Childhood Obesity: Epidemic or Opportunity?

It seems every day food manufacturers and marketers are issued a new challenge in how products for kids are developed and sold. Rightfully so, I might add, as labels are misleading and ads tell children consuming “junk” is fun and gets them into the right social circles.

With the incidence of childhood obesity tripling in the last 30 years, kids (and parents) have obviously bought in. But didn’t junk food exist 30 years ago? Or were portions smaller, more likely to be home-made, and effects somewhat mitigated by the required recess and gym classes of the day?

Regardless, everyone from Michelle Obama to Jamie Oliver to the PTA is pointing fingers. To me, it’s a complicated web of responsibility—from schools to parents to the food industry. But action is on the horizon … particularly for the food industry.

Jumping on the PR Bandwagon

When you’ve marketed foods high in sodium, sugar and fat as “fun” for so long, the messaging can get stale. Much akin to companies with questionable environmental records jumping on the sustainability bandwagon, food companies that have cut a bit of sodium (Campbell’s), reduced some sugar (Kellogg’s) or initiated Web campaigns urging kids to exercise (Pepperidge Farm) are trumpeting their efforts in a big way.

In an attempt to beat real regulations with self regulation, more than 80 organizations have signed on to Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation, dedicated to reducing obesity, especially childhood obesity (by an undisclosed percentage) by 2015.

The Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (from the Better Business Bureau) is another consortium with the mission of self-regulating advertising to kids. Our government also threw its hat in the ring with the recent release of a Web site that teaches kids to be “ad-savvy” walking them through the process of ad development in an interactive gaming environment.

Still, in March, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) graded 128 entities on their marketing to children. Of the food and beverage companies, chain restaurants and entertainment venues rated, a whopping 75 percent received a failing grade … a Big Fat F. The highest grade bestowed was a B+ which went to Mars.

The Brand Impact … Retire an Icon?

There’s even a movement afoot to retire McDonald’s “Chief Happiness Officer.” Is Ronald the beloved brand ambassador that McDonald’s claims … or the creepy “dealer on the street corner” the advocacy group Corporate Accountability International is making him out to be (see their case here)? If you’re so inclined, you can attend one of many events or sign the Retire Ronald petition.

As a marketer, I understand the reluctance to send a 30+ year mascot to the retirement home. What will be the impact on the McDonald’s brand if they are forced to retire Ronald?

McDonald’s to date has defended its fun-loving clown by talking about all the good “he” has done … from being the soul of Ronald McDonald House Charities to sending “him” to schools as a health ambassador (chocolate milk and apple slices with caramel being safer choices … really?).

Corporate Responsibility International seems to think the absence of Ronald means the demise of McDonald’s and all they find fault with. But with more than 40 percent of McDonald’s ad budget targeted to kids, Ronald would be replaced with something. This could be a “watch out what you ask for” situation. I can’t wait to see how it all unfolds.