Day 300 - 14 Nov 96 - Page 17
1 on advertising would result in the loss of in the region of
2 £15 million-worth of advertising, which it claimed would be
3 to the detriment of children's programming, but it is quite
4 obvious that the reality is it was all about commercial
5 interests coming before protection of children. That was
6 all on day 54, page 53.
7
8 Similarly, in 1978, the Federal Trades Commission in the
9 USA introduced proposals to ban television advertisements
10 directed at children under eight and of sugar-food products
11 for those who were under twelve, together with a
12 requirement that advertisers should devote money to public
13 service messages promoting good dental and nutritional
14 habits. Miss Dibb said what happens was that the US
15 advertising industry fiercely opposed the proposals and
16 even carried the fight to Washington and the courts before
17 the proposal was finally dropped by the FTC. I have not
18 got a reference for that. I think it is probably straight
19 after the other one, around that same place.
20
21 Miss Dibb responded to the argument in court that we put
22 forward, I cannot remember who by, obviously the
23 Plaintiffs' witnesses, that advertising just influenced the
24 choice between particular brands, and she said that it is
25 misleading to imply that advertising only influences a
26 brand share within a market. She said, for example, when
27 people choose to have a snack they are not just necessarily
28 making a choice between one chocolate bar or another, they
29 may be making the choice between having an apple, banana,
30 having a bag of chips, whatever. So obviously, you know,
31 the advertising did go much wider than just choice between
32 particular brands.
33
34 Obviously, it would also have an influence on whether you
35 wanted a snack at all. We have probably all experienced
36 watching an advertisement and thinking, 'Oh, yeah, I quite
37 fancy one of them', when previously we have not even been
38 remotely thinking that we want something to eat. That was
39 day 54, page 56, line 40.
40
41 An additional point on this particular issue in the case of
42 advertising to children was that young children would be
43 moving into the market, for want of a better word, so that,
44 you know, they would not be coming from having one type of
45 fast food or another, they would be coming from not having
46 any.
47
48 Miss Dibb criticised the provision by McDonald's of
49 vouchers to schools to give to children for participating
50 in school sports. Or, she criticised the provision of
51 McDonald's vouchers being given to children whether it be
52 by teachers or by McDonald's for participating in schools
53 sports. She saw that as advertising in a covert way, and
54 that there was particularly concern that if the voucher was
55 given by a teacher or, for example, a dentist -- as we
56 heard from elsewhere that McDonald's vouchers were
57 sometimes given out at dentists -- it might appear to the
58 child that this was an endorsement by a respected figure of
59 the product. That was day 54, page 57.
60
