Tuesday, November 16, 2004
If the adverts don't contribute to consumption, then why do junk food manufacturers buy them?
See BBC NEWS | Business | Food industry slams obesity plans
The government, it seems are doing something right. Although doubtless flawed in many ways, today's widely trailed White Paper on Public Health is a huge step forwards. As well as introducing a limited ban on smoking in some public places, the paper is to set forward a traffic light system for foods in supermarkets and propose the banning of junk-food adverts before the 9.00 pm watershed.
The manufacturers, of course, hate it. But the arguments they are advancing are a little - shall we say, undercooked?
Christine Fisk of the Food and Drinks Federation described the traffic light system as "simplistic". And she said that "banning adverts is not the way to go."
On Radio 4's PM programme, Monday, I distinctly heard an industry spokesman expounding the importance of these advertisements to the financial well being of the industry, while in the same paragraph claiming that they have very little impact on purchasing.
If this is the case, somebody ought to rewrite the marketing strategy. The most elementary content analysis which any A-level media studies student could do makes it absolutely clear that a great deal of junk food advertising is targetted at children. Did I say 'Content analysis'? Actually, the most cursory glance at the TV ads round tea-time should tell anyone that junk food companies are trying to get to the (in marketing jargon) purchasing decision maker (typically mum) through the kids.
If banning ads won't make any difference, then how can it be bad for the food industry? Actually, it would save them millions in wasted investment.
On the other hand, if (as every other piece of evidence in modern society would suggest) it 'pays to advertise', then the food and drinks industry needs to swallow its objections and face the future.
It's the most obvious kind of common sense to attempt to rein in the factors which are making us an increasingly obese nation. The fact that somebody was making money out of it is not a reason to hold back.
Rather than lobbying the government and complaining in the media, the instant-satisfaction brigade should think about making foodstuffs that are attractive, tasty and healthy. After all, the human race has been doing this for several thousand years. How hard can it actually be?
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
You made the problem yourself, Mr Blair
See BBC NEWS | Business | Half of refugees 'miss job help'
Jane Kennedy, junior work minister, has said that the government had to better to integrate those given refuge in the UK, after figures showed that only half of the accepted refugees are given the support they need to find work.
But the problem of refugee integration is one that the government has exacerbated itself - if not created. Since before the 2001 election, Labour and Tory politicians have talked tough about asylum seekers, propagating the myth that Britain is a soft touch and that we take more than our fair share of refugees. Legislation such as the infamous Section 55 have made it progressively harder for asylum seekers to survive the fraught process of application and appeal.
As an example of what asylum seekers have to go through, anybody who fails to declare themselves at Liverpool or Croydon within 48 hours of arriving in the UK forfeits the right to benefit while they make their application. But for most people arriving in this country through 'agents', or, more accurately, people smugglers, it can take several days to discover this piece of information - let alone find away to fulfil it.
Britain takes about half the proportion of asylum seekers that France does, and we treat them far worse through the process.
If an asylum seeker is granted refugee status, they can still be deported as there is no effective process for the various parts of the system to inform each other that the individual has a right of residence.
Labour's own policies for discouraging asylum seekers treat victims of torture and persecution like criminals. Is it surprising that government agencies then struggle to win their trust and integrate them into society?
Friday, October 29, 2004
No, no, no, no, no, Mr Howard
By their very nature, Conservatives look back to the good old days. Since the glory days of Margaret Thatcher, there hasn't been a great deal to look back to. But probably the Tories' finest subsequent moment was the 1999 European campaign message 'In Europe but not run by Europe'. Ever since then, they have been trying to find a soundbite to rival it.
So Michael Howard must have thought he was really on a winner when he came up with "Countries have constitutions and I do not want to be part of a country called Europe." Well, was he?
The The Advertising Standards Authority did some research a couple of years ago into what makes advertising messages really work. Looking at the most successful advertisements across the entire industry, they came up with three things.
First, the messages that worked were informative - and of course, accurate. Second - and this only worked if the first was fulfilled - the messages that worked were clever. And third - and this only worked if the first two were fulfilled - the messages that worked entered popular culture. Winning messages are things like 'Ronseal - it does exactly what it says on the tin' and 'Carlsberg don't make room-mates, but if they did they would probably be the finest room-mates in the world'.
So how well does Michael Howard's sound-bite do? In reverse order, it hasn't exactly entered the popular culture. "In Europe not run by Europe" caught the public imagination. Nobody but Michael Howard and his cronies ever say "Countries have constitutions and I do not want to be part of a country called Europe."
But, of course, this is less important than the question 'is it clever?' Well, not exactly. Not in the same league as the red billboards that say "You can so tell the people who like don't read the Economist". It doesn't quite have that ring to it.
But, again of course, this is trivial compared to the question 'is it informative and accurate?'
Well...
No, no, no, no, no, Mr Howard. Clubs have constitutions. Baptist churches have constitutions. The Liberal Democrat party has a constitution. The Labour party has a constitution. Interestingly, the Conservative Party does not have a constitution. Oh yes, and Great Britain doesn't have a constitution either. At least, not a written one.
But now, of course, the European Union does have a constitution - signed today, by every one of the Union's member nations. It has yet to be ratified, but it has been signed.
It's probably a good thing that political party messages are not governed by the Advertising Standards Authority code.
Previous news
 ÂOctober 2004  Â