The aim of the new legislation is to protect children from marketers trying to promote unhealthy lifestyles and when asked what this means for marketers and ad agencies and how they are affected, Draftfcb strategic planning director, Rita Larisma, told Bizcommunity, "Perhaps because the original rumours around revised legislation on marketing to children were so draconian, the final code of advertising, despite its increased strictness, seems quite reasonable.
"To recap, some of the proposals that were in the air included measures like no marketing to children under 12, no children under 12 to be used in ads and no brand characters to be used in marketing to kids under 12. So the fact that we can market to kids under 12, can use kids under 12, and can also use proprietary characters to market to kids feels like a breath of fresh air.
"My overall perceptions are that I support the basic principles of new code - namely to stop marketers from encouraging kids to eat unhealthy food - and overall it seems like the new code has stuck to the spirit of this.”
In general, Larisma is happy with the specific codes, but finds the occasional code a bit vague. For example, she questions the following: "There is a fine line between fundamentally healthy and healthy additives and the new code makes a distinction between food that is fundamentally healthy, versus food and drink that is not fundamentally healthy but has healthy additives eg a cordial is not fundamentally healthy, but it could have added vitamins.
“Under the new definition of health, the additives are not sufficient to reclassify the cordial as healthy. I think this is good - something that is full of sugar and chemicals is not made healthy by the addition of vitamins and therefore cannot make health claims. The principle is sound, but I am not sure exactly how to apply it in certain circumstances.
She continues, "For example, take Rama - it's a margarine and margarine is a fundamentally unhealthy product. But it contains Omega 3 which, according to the claims, promotes intelligence… Will Rama be allowed to advertise that it boosts intelligence, which is true of the Omega 3 component, even though the core product - margarine - is not healthy?
"Other brands that come to mind that could be affected by this new code are Tang - a powdered drink with added vitamins - I'm assuming the new code will prohibit them from speaking about their vitamins because the basic drink is not healthy? Then there is Milo - this product seems more healthy because its basic ingredient is milk, which is healthy, but it's also got sugar etc - will Milo be allowed to promote its winner's message?
"I found the code around not exploiting the imagination of kids a bit vague. The Spur ads come to mind - personally, I found the whole Red Indian journey ads pretty revolting, but on purely aesthetic principles - morally I found nothing problematic about them. Does the new legislation inhibit the use of hyperbole and over-the-top imagination? I can't be sure from reading it. The code seems open enough to be interpreted reasonably or in a draconian way, depending on the adjudicator.
According to Larisma, the basic principle of not promoting unattainable benefits again seems sound. “For e.g. you can't say that drinking Milo will make you popular at school etc, but again questions around hyperbole come to mind... One of my favorite ads as a kid was the Black Cat peanut butter ads - where this guy beats up a local bully and the line goes ‘Black belt huh? No Black Cat!'
“The logic seemed sound to me - Black Cat peanut butter is packed with protein, which is a necessary component in building muscles. Will Black Cat actually make you strong? No. Can you sell peanut butter as something that boosts muscle development... Personally, I don't have a problem with this, though it stretches the truth a bit. The new code seems to frown on this kind of lee-way though, and I am not sure if the Black Cat ad would be allowed today... which I think is a pity.”
Larisma added that the new code speaks about communicating in a language that is understandable to kids under 12. Again, she said this sounded absolutely fair, but considering the huge discrepancy in education levels in SA, she's not sure if the measure is educated kids or under-educated kids.
"In conclusion, the spirit of the new code seems sound to me - protecting children from marketers trying to promote unhealthy lifestyles; however, the legislation is vague enough on various fronts to be open to interpretation. If the adjudicators are prudish and anal, I fear it will stifle creativity in kids advertising. If the adjudicators are open-minded and prepared to honour the spirit of the code, rather than police creativity, then the code provides a welcome discipline,” she said.
