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

Prev Next Index