Food for thought: ad agencies don’t actually think an HFSS ad ban will work

Consultations were first heard in 2019, but the ban has long been punted into the long grass by governments, particularly as ad bodies rallied against the decision and the royal yacht-shaped hole in broadcaster income it supposedly leaves.

The government’s research says the ban would only reduce each UK child’s intake by 1.7 calories (half a Smartie) a day, which is about a Big Mac and a side of fries every year. To some parties, that’s not enough to warrant the disruption. To the Advertising Association, the study was “riddled with errors” and that “reduction” is leaning on the scales a bit.

The government is forging ahead in the hope that for the UK’s 13 million under-16s, there are enough benefits. Furthermore, obesity costs the NHS around £11.4bn a year and is the second biggest preventable cause of cancer. Now, under a new Labour government that took a 174-seat majority in the latest general election, there is a hunger to make the difficult choices as early as possible.

The Drum asked the industry to weigh in on any shortcomings of the policy.

Chewing the fat with adland

This “well-meaning” watershed ban is no “silver bullet,” says Jenna Russell, strategic group head at creative agency Elvis. “We’re just putting a plaster on a much bigger issue.”

Russell makes a good point that brands may now have to focus on better ways to leverage their websites, social media platforms and apps. From restriction, innovation.

Jeff Bowerman, ECD at creative agency Dept UK, says he completely respects the intention here, “but unfortunately, it will achieve very little.”

He wonders how many HFSS ads kids are actually seeing. They rarely watch linear TV and skip online ads. The issue is content, like YouTube influencers and TikTok mukbangers.

“Ads that aren’t ‘ads’ are having far more influence on young people’s food choices beyond just exposure to brands’ official adverts.”

Barney Worfolk-Smith, chief growth officer at ad effectiveness firm Daivid, believes the bill is something all “sane” readers of The Drum [we have a few] will support.

He warns that the definition of HFSS brands is much broader than many would expect. 13 specific food categories will fall under the ban. Brands, if they “are indirectly targeting children, will need to change or die.”

Wander Bruijel, chief strategy officer at brand consultancy Born Ugly, believes the ban is “mostly great for headlines, but not for waistlines.”

“Bans rarely work – particularly in today’s changeable media landscape. The industries that have gone dark have found creative ways to achieve mental availability. The ban seems more of a PR attack on quick service restaurants than a genuine attack on obesity.”

James Kirkham, co-founder of culture consultancy Iconic, asks agencies to resist the immediate urge to combat the ban and consider what they can do to support this national effort instead of spending their time trying to find loopholes.

And there are a lot of loopholes, according to Lee Baring, managing partner of implementational planning at media agency The Specialist Works, due to “the ambiguity in the detail leaving room for interpretation.”

He says: “Brands like McDonald’s continue to advertise some of its healthier options, circumventing the core of the ban.” If this happens, “the impact on broadcasters might be limited, but if fully enforced, up to 15% of TV ad revenue could be forced into a post-9pm slot”.

Annie Little, strategy director at customer experience agency Initials CX, explains the burger powerhouses have been investing in TVCs with emotive storytelling for a while now “in a bid to demonstrate their role in culture and elevate perceived value prior to legislation coming into force.”

They will be leaning on brand, not product, to drive sales and they can show brand whenever they want. Therefore the new policy will have minimal impact. She also points out that radio and podcast advertising are exempt from the ban.

Will we be hearing HFSS food described in excruciating detail instead on radio, with more budget funnelled towards these channels?

Gary Revill, group client director at media planning agency MI Media, believes the bill slightly reduces TV’s role in the media plan. It will saturate airtime and raise prices where there are no restrictions in place. He wonders if we’ll just see more HFSS ads jammed into a shorter window of time.

John Triner, director of creative agency TBWA\MCR, says it will “not reduce the amount of advertising activity undertaken by the businesses but will redistribute it across other media. Mass media like outdoor, radio and VOD, where targeting is more audience-specific, will no doubt benefit.”

Sam Shaw, strategy director of consumer insights agency Canvas8, calls it an “outdated approach that doesn’t fully address the problem at hand” because “kids aren’t glued to TV screens any more – they’re on TikTok and YouTube and, as it stands, the people who actually buy the food will still be watching junk food adverts past 9pm.”

Ayesha Gardiner, associate strategy director at social impact agency Shape History, says the ban is “a step forward” but agrees it isn’t fully attuned to the media consumption of children, citing Bite Back’s research demonstrating how easily junk food brands can target kids online with misleading health claims.

“Fast food brands may get more creative with their digital ads and we may see a spike in targeting young audiences,” she says.

Josh Clarricoats, co-founder of creative studio Insiders, rightly points to the shortcomings in education and the affordability of junk food. A majority of contributors were also keen to recontextualize advertising’s role in childhood obesity, with many feeling advertising was taking more blame than it rightly should.

Clarricoats says: “Poor diet is the result of many factors – mainly cost and availability. When kids can leave school and walk into one of a dozen cheap takeaways, hungry because the school didn’t feed them properly, then you can’t blame advertising.”

Matt Charlton, CEO of creative agency Brothers & Sisters, also thinks the ban misunderstands why people lean into the worst of junk food: “It’s seen as a little pleasure and they are happy to offset the poor nutritional value of ingredients for a bit of happiness.”

For brands already embedded in culture, the ban matters little. “Then there’s the likes of Five Guys, which has never run an ad campaign in the UK yet continues to boom.”

High street presence, word of mouth and social media impact are all doing more than TV advertising in 2024 for these brands, he suspects.

Jonny Tennant-Price, managing director of advertising agency Grey London, doesn’t think the creative will change that much moving forward. “There are many other mediums, such as OOH, where fast food brands can engage with consumers. So, the creative product will stay the same – just in different places. Real change to the fast food industry will come once those businesses address the challenge of creating healthier but still delicious food at a low cost.”

Tom Ghiden, managing director of Joan London, looks forward. “A more important conversation is to be had around how brands and marketers can better educate parents and children about their eating habits,” he says. “Fast food companies should even be part of the solution, not on the sidelines.”

Jay Topham, Co-founder of Unfound Studio, questions the purpose of a watershed for “a generation that can watch anything at any time on multiple devices.”

Finally, Ben Norman, strategy director at Principles Agency, says: “Want to make something more desirable to children? Ban it.” Norman also argues that junk food advertising doesn’t grow the category like many fear it does, but instead often dictates what brand we will make our unhealthy decisions with. “The truth is a little more nuanced.”

Mature categories aren’t growing off the back of a single or even a dozen ad campaigns. “An ad for Stella Artois has little impact on overall pint consumption just as an ad for Durex does little to increase the amount of sex have. Advertising’s power to sell one chocolate bar over another is much greater than its power to sell a chocolate bar over an apple.”

Like many polled, he hints at the government’s need to tackle education, accessibility and affordability of healthier foods. Perhaps adland will have a role to play in that, too, with campaigns such as ITV’s 'Eat Them to Defeat Them'.