Sales & Marketing

31 Jul 2008

'Rugby Superstars' Bluebird chips promotion

Warning!  The snack food industry must pay particular attention to a recent decision by the Advertising Standards Complaints Board (ASCB). A snack food manufacturer used a short term competitive marketing strategy designed to encourage a person to buy their brand of snack food over another. They included 'Rugby Superstar' collector cards in specially marked chip packets. The ASCB found that this promotion breached a number of Advertising Codes.

Bluebird Foods Limited (Bluebird) ran a promotion in specially marked packets of Bluebird chips. The chip packets included collector cards of high profile rugby players from the five New Zealand Super 14 rugby teams. There were 50 cards in the collection.

The promotion created a frenzy among school children. Children sought to collect the whole set. The set could be bought on TradeMe for approximately $700. People were even willing to pay $160 for the Keith Robinson Card. A folder to store the cards was given away free if you bought a 40 multi-pack of chips. These folders were even sold for up to $40 when Bluebird ran out of stock.

The Ministry of Health made a complaint to the ASCB about the promotion. They claimed the promotion was in breach of both the Code for Advertising of Food and the Code for Advertising to Children. They argued the message to collect all cards contained in the advertisement encouraged children to eat chips inappropriately or in excess.

The Ministry of Health claimed that if a child was buying 40 gram packets of chips, they would have to consume at least 50 packs to complete the set. They said that if it took the average child 80 packs to get the set, they would have consumed over 1 kg of fat in the process.

The ASCB upheld the complaint and found that Bluebird was in breach of both the Code for Advertising of Food and the Code for Advertising to Children.

Code for Advertising of Food (Food Code)

The ASCB considered the complaint with regard to Principle 2 of the Food Code. The ASCB agreed that the promotion had been prepared with a due sense of social responsibility to consumers and society.

The ASCB then considered whether Bluebird had breached Principle 3 of the Food Code, requiring a high standard of social responsibility in relation to advertising directed at children.

The majority, while noting that there were no specific calls to action directed at children in the advertisement, considered the concept of collecting and trading cards and the use of high profile rugby players, resulted in a high level of appeal to children.

The ASCB considered that excessive consumption of a treat food was a likely outcome of the promotion given the number of cards to collect. Accordingly, the promotion was in breach of Guideline 3(a) of the Food Code. The ASCB also held that the promotion was likely to undermine Food and Nutrition Guidelines (Guideline 3(d)).

The minority of the ASCB disagreed that Principle 3 or the relevant Guidelines had been breached. They argued the advertising did not specifically target children and the promotion would have appeal to a wide range of ages.

Code for Advertising to Children

The ASCB then considered the complaint with reference to the Code for Advertising to Children. The majority held there was a breach of the high standard of social responsibility (Principle 2), and the use of celebrities in this promotion, undermined a healthy diet (Guideline 2(l)).

In relation to Principle 4 and Guideline 4(d), the majority considered that the advertising for the promotion did encourage excessive consumption, given that 50 cards made up the series. This was despite the time period of 12 to 14 weeks for the promotion.

What Does This Mean for Marketers?

These are tough times for marketers of food, especially treat food enjoyed by children. We have a few observations to make about this decision.

First, notwithstanding that Bluebird said that it did not target people under 14 and the television advertisements for the promotion were only shown during shows for the 18-39 age category, it was nevertheless held that the advertisement was "directed at children". This has serious implications for marketers of food, especially treat food that is enjoyed by many, some of whom are children.

Secondly, the ASCB made the point that, having made a complaint, the Ministry of Health then issued a press release before the complaint was ever considered by the ASCB. Naming and shaming is all very well, but the Ministry of Health should have waited until after the decision!

Thirdly, we suspect that at the heart of this complaint was the fact that the promotion was running at the same time as the Ministry of Health's own promotion "Feeding our Futures" which appeared to be an anti-snacks in packs campaign. Perhaps marketers should in the future keep an eye on the Ministry of Health website and try not to schedule campaigns at the same time as Ministry campaigns.

Authors

Peter Stubbs

Partner - Corporate & Commercial

DDI: +64 9 977 5010

Mobile: +64 21 955 230

Email:

View Profile

Craig Nelson

Senior Associate - Corporate & Commercial

DDI: +64 9 977 5185

Mobile: +64 21 918 309

Email:

View Profile