Day 001 - 28 Jun 94 - Page 40
1 advertising constituted 9 per cent of the budget, locally
11 per cent. 1990, the national figures was 9 per cent,
2 the local figure was 10 per cent; 1991, the national
figure was 11 per cent and the local figure was 9 per
3 cent.
4 My Lord, if one compares those percentages, as I suggested
earlier on this morning, perhaps with some advantage to
5 what is asserted in the leaflet, namely, that nearly all
the plaintiffs' advertising is directed at children.
6
The second question I ask is this: Is the quality of the
7 plaintiffs' advertising to children objectionable? As
your Lordship knows, throughout most of the world
8 advertisements aimed at children, if they are allowed at
all, are strictly regulated by government or other
9 independent bodies.
10 The plaintiffs strive to ensure that they observe the
local regulations in every country where they operate.
11 Your Lordship finds copies of the relevant television
guidelines for the UK and the USA at pink bundle 7,
12 section A within that bundle.
13 My Lord, in addition, in the United States and Europe the
plaintiffs have put in place their own strict codes which
14 they call the Golden Arches codes. Copies of these are in
that same pink bundle, 7 in section B.
15
Third, the plaintiffs have produced compilations on video
16 tape of their children's television advertising in the
United Kingdom and the USA which we will show to your
17 Lordship during the course of the trial. Your Lordship
may think, having seen them, that if there is a criticism
18 to be made of them, it is that they perhaps to an adult
are sometimes a little banal and sometimes a little
19 over-sugary, a little soppy.
20 My Lord, Mr. Kenneth Miles, whose reference in the witness
bundles, the yellow ones, is VI/3, who is the
21 Director-General and Chief Executive of the Incorporated
Society of British Advertisers has reviewed the
22 plaintiffs' UK children's advertising, particularly the
television commercials, and their codes of practice.
23
He expresses himself satisfied that they conform to the
24 standards laid down by the Independent Television
Commission and the Advertising Standards Authority and
25 sees no cause to criticize them at all. He also observes
that they do not display any tendency to generate what is
26 called "pester power", that is to suggest to children that
they nag their parents to take them to McDonald's. He
27 also feels that they have no tendency to "trap children
into thinking that they aren't normal" if they don't go to
28 McDonald's.
29 My Lord, perhaps really the most important question in
relation to advertising, particularly advertising to
30 children, your Lordship may think may be this: Even if it
were the case that the plaintiffs' advertisements were
