Undoubtedly childhood obesity is a massive issue and one that should concern policy makers, brand owners and parents. However there is a distinct danger that an over simplistic approach to the problem may result in the wrong forms of behavioural change.

A recent survey by ‘Lacors’ (the local government regulatory body) has shown that nurseries are giving children too ‘much’ fruit and vegetables, often as a result of the pressures being placed by over anxious parents. In light of the constant media coverage on high fat/sugar/salt food, some parents are putting their young children on strict diets of low fat and low calorie foods. This is of course extremely dangerous for the well being of the child as their core development and growth needs necessitates the inclusion of fat and sugar as essential parts of their diets. The low calorie, high fibre diets being adopted by adults are simply unsuitable for children under the age of 5.

In a similar vein the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has recently rejected claims that a recent Coco Pops advert ‘Ever Thought of Coco Pops after school?’ was irresponsible. Those groups that lodged the complaints believed that it would encourage children to eat excessive amounts of sugary cereal during the day. As any parent knows however, after school, children frequently arrive home tired, in a very grumpy mood and in much need of a sugar boost until their evening meal is ready for them. In these situations children have typically been given sweet snacks such as biscuits & cake bars, and in this context, I believe that the potential provision of a bowl of Coco Pops served with ‘full fat’ milk would be a welcome and legitimate addition to the after school snacking repertoire. 

It is crucial that parents are made aware of the issues of healthy lifestyles however the current information that parents receive often leads them to conclude that some foods are bad and some are good. There is no such thing as bad food; there are however bad ‘diets’ and we need to ensure that this message is more clearly conveyed. If we do not, we risk the under-nourishment of  toddlers and a misguided displacement of alternative food consumption of older children.

“We’re not saying this body wash will make your man smell like a romantic millionaire jet fighter pilot, but we are insinuating it….”

That’s the message of this US advert that aired during the Superbowl and got massive airtime during the Olympics. It’s been watched almost 8 million times on YouTube, so it can’t just be me that thinks that it is purely awesome and doing something very very right.

For me that ’something’ is a combination of its tone; cheeky, ironic, tongue in cheek (dare I say postmodern?) and its style; featuring a chap so innately cool that, hell, forget wanting to smell like him, I think I might want to be him.

Burger King’s new US campaign sees the brand sneakily stealing ideas from McDonald’s HQ, only to flog them for a dollar at the local BK outlet.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, it’s an odd strategy because it appears to credit the comeptition as the category innovator, the brand bringing great new ideas to fast food consumers. It’s possible that Burger King is trying to establish a competitive consumer proposition: “whatever McDonald’s does, we’ll do it cheaper”. But this is not a category that is particularly financially punishing even in recessionary times, and the small print at the close of the ad reveals the lower prices are only temporary anyway.

That seems to suggest there are two messages in the ad: 1. Burger King is cheaper on some of its products than McDonald’s, but only temporarily. and 2. McDonald’s is much better than us at coming up with great ideas you like.

Surely I can’t be the only one thinking Burger King have done McDonald’s a bit of a favour here!