Poster Presentation ANZOS-Breakthrough Discoveries Joint Annual Scientific Meeting 2018

Can counter-advertising inoculate spectators against influence by unhealthy food sponsorship of sport? (#336)

Helen Dixon 1 , Maree Scully 1 , Jeff Niederdeppe 2 , Simone Pettigrew 3 4 , Bridget Kelly 5 , Kathryn Chapman 6 7 , Melanie Wakefield 1
  1. Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
  2. Department of Communication, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA
  3. Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer Control, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia
  4. School of Psychology and Speech Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Bentley, Western Australia, Australia
  5. Early Start, School of Health and Society, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia
  6. School of Medicine & Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
  7. School of Life and Environment Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Background: Energy-dense, nutrient poor ‘junk foods’ (JF) are heavily promoted through sport sponsorship. Strategies are needed to counter this.  

Aim: To conduct a naturalistic trial assessing whether exposing young adult spectators to counter-advertising or public health advertising prior to viewing a JF sponsored elite sporting event, diminishes sponsorship effects and increases support for restrictions on JF sport sponsorship.

Method: An online panel was used to randomly assign 18-29 year olds who planned to watch the AFL Grand Final to one of four advertising conditions: (A) neutral ad (control); (B) counter-ad critiquing JF; (C) counter-ad critiquing JF industry; or (D) obesity prevention public health ad. N=1,316 participants completed a pre-test questionnaire and viewed their assigned ad online 1-3 days before watching the 2017 AFL Grand Final (which featured JF sponsorship). Participants answered post-test measures in the days after the event (n=802) and 1-2 weeks later (n=656) to test for protective effects.

Findings: Participants found the counter-ad critiquing JF industry more believable, attention-grabbing, reassuring and encouraging than the counter-ad critiquing JF. At follow-up 1, the counter-ad critiquing JF industry promoted less favourable attitudes to sponsor brands, and the obesity prevention ad reduced preferences for fast food compared to the control condition. None of the ad interventions reduced favourable perceptions of brand image, brand preferences, or purchase intentions for sponsor brands, nor did the counter-ads increase support for restricting JF sport sponsorship.

Conclusions: Counter-advertising critiquing industry may detract from favourable attitudes to sponsor brands and obesity prevention advertising may detract from intentions to consume fast food, in the face of JF sponsorship exposure. However, with relatively brief exposure, such interventions appear insufficient to yield other substantive impacts. It may be difficult for small public health advertising campaigns to cut through and bolster spectators’ susceptibility to influence by the surfeit of JF sport sponsorship.