More on advertising junk food to children

U.S. News and World Report reported on the food industry's response to the Obama administration's recommendation regarding advertising junk food to children. The administration advised setting nutrition guidelines for the kind of food that can be limited to children. A coalition of the nation's largest food makers has set its own, less stringent guidelines, to go into effect by December 31, 2013.

The guidelines and recommendations are all part of an ongoing discussion about the influence of media on children's nutritional habits. The discussion should continue, not just on a policy level, but on an interpersonal level as well. Parents, doctors, teachers and kids should have continuing discussion about how media tries to influence the decisions we make. Let's call it a lesson in media literacy, with a little health literacy on the side.

Should junk food ads be banned?

The American Academy of Pediatrics released a preview of a soon-to-be-published study on childhood obesity. Commenting on the article, the authors and the Academy are advocating a ban on junk food advertising in programming aimed at children.

There is a lot of evidence linking the time children spend watching television and obesity. But less is known about the effects of advertising on children. What do you think? Should junk food ads aimed at children be banned? Would banning the ads do any good?

How do food companies define health food?

The Food and Drug Administration has sent a warning to food manufacturers about the criteria they are using to label foods "healthy." The FDA is concerned that too many healthy labels without clear criteria for defining what is healthy may confuse consumers. And some obviously unhealthy foods have been defined as a healthy using the manufacturers own standards.

The article about the warning made me chuckle, if only because I immediately thought of my least favorite commercial on television right now. I yelled at the television the first time I saw this commercial. Something to the effect of "You've got to be kidding me!" That's right, Kellogg's is trying to market Froot Loops as a healthy food. "They make your tummy happy." Sure, fiber is good, but I don't think health is Froot Loops best selling point.




What do you think? Does the FDA need to step in and set standards for what manufacturers call healthy food?

Campaigning for health care reform

In 1992 and 1993 opponents to health care reform ran a series of ads featuring a fictional middle class couple, Harry and Louise, who were worried that health care reform would limit their access to care. Now health care reform is before Congress again and Harry and Louise are reprising their roles. But this time, the grayer Harry and Louise are in favor of health care reform. The New York Times article has links to videos from 1992 and 2009.

In some ways, the change reflects the changing landscape of the costs of health care. The change also reflects the different groups that are coming together for health care reform that did not come together in 1992. But in addition to all of those factors, after watching the clips, I think you'll agree that reviving the Harry and Louise ads is just smart advertising.

hospitals and social media

The New York Times had an article yesterday about the growing trend of hospitals using various types of social media to reach potential patients. In the past, hospitals have been quite conservative about marketing and advertising, but now you can find hospitals posting videos of surgeries on youtube, surgeons twittering during surgery, and patients blogging about their care at a hospital.

Hospitals see social media outlets as a cheap way to reach out to potential patients, who are increasingly doing more research and comparing hospitals for treatment, rather than simply going where the doctors sends them. But ethicists quoted in the NYT article raise some important questions, not just about patient privacy concerns, but also about the responsibilities hospitals have regarding how they represent themselves. Do these videos and other outreaches paint too rosy a picture of medical care at a given facility? Do hospitals have an obligation to disclose on the video what can go wrong during a procedure? There are also serious questions about using social networking sites to recruit volunteers for clinical trials. After reading the article, I would add questions about whether patients might be coerced into allowing a physician to broadcast a procedure or to give a positive review for a web video.

The article raises important questions. What do you think? What ethical questions should hospital consider when thinking about social marketing strategies?

How far should a smoking ad go?

The Today Show aired an interesting story this morning about an anti-smoking ad running in New York. The ad shows a very upset little boy, lost in a train station, and asks the audience to imagine if he was this upset to lose you for a minute, how upset would he be to lose you for a lifetime?

Some are concerned about the little boy in the ad, asking if those tears are a little too real to be acting. But it also raises the question of how far is too far to go in a health ad.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

What do you think? Does it go to far? Or is it effective?

A new ad campaign and a speedy response

I think what is perhaps most remarkable part of this story was the speed with which it became so huge.

Motrin released an ad on their web site about "baby-wearing," parents who wear their children in a sling or a wrap, and the ensuing back pain. However, some parents took offense to the insinuation that moms wear their babies because it is trendy and in particular, the lines that "Supposedly, it’s a real bonding experience" and "Plus, it totally makes me look like an official mom. And so if I look tired and crazy, people will understand why." The offended moms and dads took to their computers and responded swiftly and loudly through blogs, Twitter, and even responses on YouTube. The company reacted, though not quite as swiftly as the bloggers, by removing the ad from its web site. Of course, there are already magazine ads on the newsstands and the you can still find the video on YouTube:



I don't want to comment about whether the ad is offensive or not. I'm not a mom, I've never worn a baby sling, I have no opinion. What is fascinating is how quickly a group of people expressed their opinion, spread the message to others, who in turn expressed their opinions and in doing so created a voice loud enough to get a company to change course on a brand new advertising campaign.

You can find The New York Times article and comments here: http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/moms-and-motrin/

What do you think?

Advertising medical devices

A Senate committee met today to discuss advertising of medical devices. While advertising for medical devices, such as replacement knees and heart stents, are a relatively small share of consumer medical advertising, some believe that because of the risks, extra precautions should be taken with such advertisements. Medical devices almost all require surgery and become a permanent part of the patient, and as such are riskier than a pill. But some are concerned that device advertisements aren't being clear enough about the risks.

You can see a New York Times article about the hearing here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/business/17device.html?ex=1379390400&en=f81f16144c4b1d4a&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink.

In light of the article I posted yesterday, what do you think? Should medical device advertisements be more closely regulated?

children and the media and sugary breakfast cereal

Nothing stirs passions among communication scholars quite as much as a conversation on children and the media. The influence of media on children has gotten the attention of public health officials, whose attention has turned to the makers of sugary cereals, greasy fast food and fizzy soda. The Federal Trade Commission released a report this week about the pervasiveness of such advertisements and a coalition of food companies released their own report on the progress made on self-regulation of advertising and increasing the nutritional value of foods marketed to children.

Whether the answer is government regulation or self-monitoring, the attention paid to this issue demonstrates the power of mass communication as an influence on children's health.

You can read more in the New York Times article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/business/media/30adco.html?ex=1375156800&en=18798a00c135aaf6&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink.

Advertising for patients

The New York Times had an interesting article yesterday about the business of plastic surgeons marketing their services. Since plastic surgeons usually perform elective surgeries, they re not subject to insurance premiums and listing as a preferred provider. So they have to advertise to get themselves to stand out.

You can find the article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/fashion/10Skin.html?ex=1365566400&en=53ebad6de28d086a&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink.

What do you think?

Heart Health and Diet Coke

The National Institutes of Health's National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute is partnering with Coca Cola to bring awareness to women's heart health. Diet Coke is sponsoring NHLBI's Red Dress Fashion Show during Fashion Week in February, as well as sponsoring NHLBI's heart truth ad campaign. But the authors and comments at The Wall Street Journal Health blog are wondering about the connection between a sweet soda and heart health. http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/01/08/hearth-health-goes-better-with-diet-coke/.

So what are the ramifications of having a not-so-healthy beverage sponsoring a health campaign? Advertisers align themselves with certain programming to try and project a certain image. Is the advertiser trying to buy a healthy label by sponsoring a health campaign?