Joint memorandum by ITV plc, Channel 4
Television Corporation, Channel 5 Broadcasting Ltd (Five), GMTV,
Nickelodeon UK, Turner Broadcasting Systems (Europe), Jetix and
Disney Channel (WP 80)
This memorandum summarises the response of the
companies listed below to the Government's Public Health White
Paper. Our common interest is as broadcasters (and in many cases
producers) of high quality children's programming in the UK, funded
by advertising revenue.
We understand the widespread concern among health
professionals, Government and society as a whole over obesity
and unhealthy lifestyles. We recognise that Government is committed
to taking action in this area, particularly in respect of children
and young people. The White Paper sets out a range of far-reaching
proposals designed to encourage more people to make healthier
lifestyle choices. We thoroughly support this multi-faceted approach.
The White Paper rightly acknowledges that television
can play a positive role in assisting the Government's health
objectives. Because it plays an important role in people's lives,
TV can help convey information about healthier lifestyles—whether
through specific initiatives like ITV's Britain on the Move
or the BBC's Fat Nation, storylines in soaps, dramas
and documentaries, or more straightforward public awareness campaigns.
Nevertheless we are concerned that proposals
in the White Paper may lead to action being taken to restrict
the advertising of food and drink products on television, the
effects of which would be disproportionate to the hoped-for benefits.
We support the need for tight advertising codes, with particular
protection for children. However, banning or restricting categories
of advertising would be likely to have a major impact on us as
primarily advertiser-funded television companies and, therefore,
on our ability to invest in original programming and, in particular,
continue to deliver a range of well-funded, high-quality children's
programming. We also believe such measures would not be effective
in tackling public health issues in relation to diet.
Our comments below therefore concentrate on
the proposals and recommendations in the White Paper that relate
to advertising and promotions (Chapter 2, "Health in the
Consumer Society").
1. Will the proposals enable the Government
to achieve its public health goals?
The White Paper recognises that the need to
address both nutrition and exercise ("calories in" and
"calories out") necessitates a co-ordinated and multi-dimensional
approach and this is reflected in the Government's wide-ranging
conclusions and recommendations, the vast majority of which we
would support.
Specifically, we welcome the fact that Government—in
line with the recent Health Select Committee Report on obesity—believes
that the food and advertising industry can play a helpful role
in tackling obesity. In our view, the most effective contribution
broadcasters can make is to convey positive messages about diet
and lifestyle to their viewers through programming or promotion.
In many cases, this is already happening, for example:
— ITV's Britain On The Move is
a UK-wide initiative encouraging everyone to improve their health
and quality of life by walking a little further each day. It was
a great success in 2004, with over 1.2 million people participating
in ITV's National Day of Walking on 19 September right across
the country, and will be developed further in 2005. It also included
60 hours of dedicated programming across the ITV regions and a
storyline in Coronation Street—the nation's favourite soap—was
watched by an average 12 million people across its two episodes.
— Channel 4's educational output supports
various areas related to the school curriculum and covers both
food technology, diet and health. Programmes like Citizen Power,
Planet.Com and Consumer Power include information about organic
food production, sustainability and the media. Channel 4's "Fit
Farm" also include messages on diet and healthy lifestyles
whilst "You Are What You Eat" and a forthcoming series
looking at how school meals can be changed for the better both
address important issues of diet.
— In 2004 Nickelodeon ran a six-week
summer holiday campaign encouraging kids to adopt a healthy lifestyle.
The scope of the campaign ranged from pre-schoolers through to
teenagers who make up the 3.5 million kids the Nickelodeon channels
reach on a monthly basis, and the positive messaging was executed
with Nickelodeon's unique, humorous and non-preachy slant to engage
the audience in an effective way. Summer schedules were also devoted
to programming which focused on active lifestyles and healthy
eating. Examples included "Fit Facts"—an educational
animation series covering flab, nutrition, exercise, and fast
food; "Get the Skinny"—a regular news magazine
programme on healthy eating; and "Wiggles"—song
and dance along routines aimed at pre-schoolers. The campaign
was backed up by our annual six-week summer road show, "Nick
on the Road", which had a "Let's Play" active lifestyle
theme in 2004.
We also support the White Paper's emphasis on
the need for "positive health campaigns" that would
aim to raise awareness of the need to make healthier choices and
target behavioural change. We have already offered to work with
Government on this (as have the food and advertising industries),
and believe that we have much to contribute, particularly in terms
of creative expertise.
2. Are the proposals appropriate, will they
be effective and do they represent value for money?
Paragraph 54 of Chapter 2 of the White Paper
outlines three particular areas in which it expects Ofcom to consider
amending the rules governing food and drink advertising and promotion:
(i) "when, where and how frequently
certain advertisements and promotions appear—for example,
an option would be to consider different restrictions during children's
television (pre 6 pm), during peak times (6 pm-9 pm) and after
the 9 pm watershed;
(ii) the use of cartoon characters, role
models, celebrities and glamorisation of foods that children should
only eat seldom or in moderation as part of a balanced diet; and
(iii) the inclusion of clear nutritional
information—perhaps based on a signposting system—and/or
balancing messages in advertisements to counteract the influence
of high fat, salt and sugar food advertisements."
We would like to stress that we have always
supported the need for appropriate advertising controls, and acknowledge
that children need particular protection. It is vital that advertising
rules evolve to reflect public concerns and we will be co-operating
fully with Ofcom as it undertakes a review of the Advertising
Code over the coming months. Like Ofcom, we believe any tightening
of the Code in respect of food advertising to children must be
proportionate and evidence-based.
However, we do not believe that proposals
to restrict the volume of advertising of certain food and drink
products would be "appropriate, effective or represent value
for money". In short, we consider that this would constitute
a disproportionate response given its potentially severe impact
on broadcasting revenues, a view shared by Ofcom when it published
its extensive research on food advertising to children in July
2004.
The partial regulatory impact assessment
published in tandem with the White Paper seriously underestimates
the implications of advertising volume restrictions for commercial
broadcasters' revenues, as well as the knock-on effects on
investment in children's programmes, employment in the UK, inward
investment, the health of the independent production sector, and
the ability of viewers to enjoy a wide range of programmes from
a variety of broadcasters.
In 2003 £522 million was spent by advertisers
promoting food, soft drinks and chain restaurants on television.
This represents 14% of total television advertising revenue—and
30% of the revenue of dedicated children's channels. To ban or
seriously restrict the advertising of these products would leave
a massive hole in the revenues of all advertiser-funded television.
This would have a negative impact on the value of terrestrial
broadcasting licences (the terms for which are currently being
discussed with Ofcom) and could also lead some channels to reconsider
their business model or even go out of business.
The White Paper suggests that consideration
be given to introducing advertising restrictions both during children's
television and at other times when children watch television.
This would still have a considerable impact: a ban on advertising
food and drinks products between 6 am and 6 pm would have meant
a fall in revenue to all broadcasters of £144 million in
2003; a ban between 6 am and 9 pm would have meant a revenue loss
of £344 million.
There is a direct correlation between advertising
revenue and programme investment: any reduction in advertising
revenue would have a direct impact on programme commissioning.
In 2003, the commercial public service broadcasters (ITV1, GMTV,
Channel 4 and Five) invested nearly £72 million in children's
programmes across different genres (drama, education, information
and entertainment), of which the vast majority was commissioned
for the UK audience, thus generating a significant number of jobs
in this country. Specialist children's channels, whose whole output
is aimed at children, would suffer an even greater impact across
all their airtime, which would lead to job cuts and the end of
programme contracts.
Independent production companies would also
be affected. The independent sector produces a higher than average
proportion of programmes for children's television. Some independent
producers are very small and losing one output deal with a major
broadcaster would put them out of business.
The children's TV market in the UK is extremely
competitive, and the BBC, with children's programmes on BBC1,
BBC2 and its two digital children's channels, is growing its viewing
share (now 34% of all children's viewing). An advertising ban
would de-stabilise the commercial broadcasters and threaten the
competitiveness of the children's TV sector as a whole—this
could leave the BBC the monopoly provider of children's programming
in the UK.
The White Paper goes on to state at paragraph
58 that "The Government is committed to ensuring that measures
to protect children's health are rigorously implemented and soundly
based on evidence of impact. We will therefore monitor the success
of these measures in relation to the balance of food and drink
advertising and promotion to children, and children's food preferences
to assess their impact. If, by early 2007, they have failed to
produce change in the nature and balance of food promotion, we
will take action through existing powers or new legislation to
implement a clearly defined framework for regulating the promotion
of food to children".
Legislation is a far blunter tool than regulatory
codes, which are able to adapt to changing environments far more
quickly. We therefore welcome the White Paper's intention to resort
to legislation only as a last resort. However, Government must
be clear how it will judge success or failure of the advertising
industry in 2007. Whilst it is legitimate to assess the need for
further action by reference to the degree of change in the "nature
and balance of food promotion" by 2007, there must be no
suggestion that the advertising industry will face further restrictions
if it has failed to secure a shift in "children's food preferences".
This is not within the direct control of the advertising industry
but will depend on the whole range of factors identified in the
White Paper.
We will be seeking clarity from Government on
how it will measure in 2007 whether the nature and balance of
food promotion has changed sufficiently. The impact of changes
to the Advertising Code implemented by Ofcom will clearly be one
measure. However, it is also important that Government factors
in the extent to which the market has self-regulated, eg by individual
companies changing the way in which they advertise their products
or actually diverting spend away from advertising. As an illustration
of this last point, advertising spend on television by food, chain
restaurants and soft drink manufacturers has actually declined
by 22% between 1999 and 2003 (Source: Ofcom, Page 122, paragraph
3.5.2) and this trend has continued in 2004, as advertisers have
responded to public concern and regulatory uncertainty.
3. Does the necessary infrastructure exist
to ensure that proposals will be implemented and goals achieved?
The necessary infrastructure certainly exists
to implement changes to the regulation of both broadcast and non-broadcast
advertising. Broadcast advertising is subject to statutory regulation,
while non-broadcast advertising is subject to self-regulation.
In broadcasting, the Advertising Code which
for many years was drawn up and policed by the ITC has recently
been transferred to the new co-regulatory system for broadcast
advertising under the auspices of the ASA. This new regulatory
framework was approved by Parliament last year and adherence is
a condition of broadcast licences. All advertisements go through
a rigorous pre-clearance exercise prior to transmission (performed
in most cases on behalf of broadcasters by the Broadcast Advertising
Clearance Centre) to ensure that they comply with both the spirit
and the letter of the Code. The ASA then adjudicates on all complaints
and where complaints are upheld can demand immediate amendment
or withdrawal of an advertisement. If necessary, the ASA can refer
a broadcaster that continues to carry non-compliant advertising
to Ofcom, which has the full range of regulatory sanctions at
its disposal, including fines and withdrawal of the licence to
broadcast.
We note and support the White Paper's view that
television advertising should not be the sole focus of regulatory
intention. Clearly to be effective, any new measures must embrace
both broadcast and non-broadcast advertising. Failure to adopt
a consistent approach to the advertising sector as a whole would
also risk disproportionately impacting the broadcast advertising
market as advertising spend would be diverted to the less heavily
regulated non-broadcast sector (eg print, Internet). Indeed the
current year-on-year decline in television food advertising spend
that has been precipitated by the current regulatory uncertainty
suggests that this is already happening.
February 2005
|
