±±¾©Èü³µpk10

Ofcom is under mounting pressure to put a ban on pre-watershed advertising of foods high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) back on the table, as it consults on how television advertising for children should be restricted.

Not only does the regulator face a legal challenge from the National Heart Forum, but last week government body the Food Standards Agency threw its support behind the idea of a pre-watershed ban.

Ofcom has so far stuck to its guns, maintaining the line that an outright ban would be disproportionate, and publishing figures showing that it would hit TV ad revenues to the tune of £140.8m - a fairly insignificant sum compared to the £245m to £990m that Ofcom estimates the NHS could save annually on treating obesity-related illnesses.

But there is a growing lobby for a ban.

±±¾©Èü³µpk10ers for the ban are confident they can succeed, pointing to the fact that more than 280 MPs have signed an Early-Day Motion supporting the Children's Health Bill, which would see an end to pre-watershed junk-food advertising.

"Given that one in three kids is overweight, we think a radical solution is needed," says Richard Watts, children's food campaigner at Sustain, an alliance for better food and farming.

Government targets

But on the other side of the fence, Nick Bampton, managing director of Viacom Brand Solutions, argues that a volte-face from the government would lead to a serious loss of credibility.

"I don't think there will be a ban. We're a significant way down the process of responding to the task that the Government has set," he says.

But what impact would a watershed have? Although food advertisers largely refuse to be drawn into speculation about how their marketing would change in the face of a ban, Unilever describes the proposal as "impractical and disproportionate".

Ofcom has said that an outright ban on advertising HFSS foods before 9pm could lead to the withdrawal of some food advertisers from the television market completely.

This is a view supported by Kevin West, media director at Carat, who also points out that such a move could also severely hamper the development of interactive advertising campaigns, as it would barely be worth running them after 9pm.

"The last thing the advertising industry needs is talk of a ban - television is already in the doldrums and the impact on revenues would be another blow," says West.

Questioned on the issue of where else advertisers could go, West says that outdoor is the next best medium to gain mass impact, but points out that it has its limits.

"And there is cinema, but would you go to the expense of making a television ad just to be shown in cinemas?" he asks. Others feel a TV ban may be the thin end of the wedge.

Nick Cross, head of MediaVest Manchester's children's division little m small v, says: "In the short-term there will be a migration to other media to which children are exposed, but the natural extension will be to take the ban to other media."

Food manufacturers, media owners and the advertising industry are joining together to meet Ofcom's challenge for a fourth option.

Some ideas for the fourth option could include agreeing the total number of minutes for food advertising outside of children's programmes, or for the industry to campaign to promote healthy eating and lifestyles. Another solution would allow marketing of any foods that are deemed "healthy".

Health issues

The food industry has already taken a number of steps to deflect criticism, such as reformulating products to reduce the amount of salt, fat and sugar and restricting marketing activities to very young children and within schools.

But other attempts to put the focus on health issues have been viewed as cynical - as in the example of Kellogg's Coco Pops Straws, described by one parent in the Ofcom consultation as "so wrong I don't know where to begin". The chocolate-lined wafer product was promoted with an ad campaign saying that they were a good way to get children to drink more milk.

One way that advertisers might fight back should a ban come into force, is suggested by a study released by Viacom Brand Solutions, which sells airtime across channels including Nickelodeon, Nick Jr and MTV.

The research found parents are increasingly turning to their children for advice on what brands are cool, from cars to consumer electronics.

But whether this will be enough to persuade Sony and Ford to switch significant ad budget to children's channels remains to be seen.

OFCOM'S ESTIMATES

- Ofcom estimates that the introduction of a pre-watershed ban on HFSS food advertising would hit television channels' revenues to the tune of £140.8m. It has broken this figure down into a loss of £113.8m for the five terrestrial channels and a further £27m for non-terrestrial, including £4.4m from those broadcasting specifically to children

- This compares with an estimated loss of revenues of £18.3m for package one (timing restrictions on HFSS products); £21.4m for package two (timing restrictions on all food and drink products); and £43.1m for package three (volume-based restrictions on all products).