It is now coming up to four years ago that the phased changes to the advertising codes of practice were effected to restrict how, when and where food is advertised in cases where the food or the advertising – it needn’t be both - is of interest to children.

Some major brand licensors, notably BBC Worldwide, took pre-emptive action by pulling back from any licensing to the fast food industry, even before the publication of the regulatory changes.

The popular view at the time was that the death knell was being sounded for licensing of children’s brands to the food and soft drink industry as we knew it.

And was that prophetic?

The answer’s no and yes. ‘No’ because the revised regulatory advertising codes of practice were not as cataclysmic as some had predicted. Advertising is now restricted if it targets pre-schoolers and primary-schoolers, but this doesn’t extend to teenagers.

‘Yes’ because the changes now force advertisers to take a fragmented approach. No longer is it possible to conduct a single, through-the-line campaign across all media. Scheduling requirements and content regulations restrict advertising in different ways, based not only on the composition of the food or drink, but also the content of the advertising, the type of media, and (for broadcast) the timing of transmission.

The fragmentation is most dramatically illustrated by the fact that advertisers have to assess the nutritional composition of food and drink products for TV advertising, but not at all for non-broadcast advertising.

TV adverts for food or drink are still allowed to target primary school and pre-school kids by featuring licensed characters or celebrities popular with children, but only if the product in question isn’t high in fat, salt or sugar, or HFSS for short. Even if licensed characters and celebrities aren’t being used, HFSS products still can’t be advertised at any time a higher than normal proportion of under 16s are likely to be watching.

Conversely, the HFSS distinction doesn’t feature at all in the regulations for non-broadcast marketing; it’s simply no longer permissible to buy advertising space for ads which target pre-schoolers and primary schoolers, whether in the press, on hoardings, as website banners or other paid-for media.

Many still feel that no credible argument has been provided as to why this schizophrenic approach between broadcast and non-broadcast advertising is justified.

Confusion also abounds because an advert can be adjudged to ‘target’ young children by using licensed characters or celebrities which happen to be popular with children as well as adults, even though the food or drink being advertised is otherwise of little or no interest to young children.

And frustration was, and still is, expressed that the nutrition profiling model used to assess whether products are HFSS or not, produces some eccentric and unfair results. The main complaints are that the model tests a set measurement of 100 grams rather than a normal sized serving and, secondly, disregards normal serving conditions. Cereal producers in particular are aggrieved by the fact that many of their products would be reclassified from HFSS to non-HFSS if normal serving conditions applied and products were tested after adding milk.

But in practice these issues arguably have proven largely academic; whilst food and drink advertisers might have wanted to take time to work out whether they could adapt to the new regulatory regime and continue using licensed children’s brands, public opinion and pressure groups probably had more to do with decision-making than the new regulations.

The wholesale unravelling of licences for the food and drink sector followed the regulatory changes. Whether this was led by advertisers seeking to salvage the initiative or whether their hands were forced by licensors of children’s brands withdrawing licences, is an interesting question. But there is little doubt that both licensors and licensees were reacting to unprecedented media coverage of the issues of child obesity and TV advertising to children.

The informal eating out sector saw significant players changing their advertising strategies; Burger King was one of the first to act by stopping TV advertising and KFC went a stage further by stopping its toy-with-meal premium-offerings completely. For cereal producers, Kellogg’s moved away not just from premium offerings, but from licensed character promotions altogether.

But not everyone reacted in this way. Some high profile advertisers sought to adapt to the new regulatory regime whilst also attempting to address public concerns about obesity and inappropriate targeting of children. As significantly, key brand licensors of children’s characters were persuaded to keep faith with these advertisers.

One such company, McDonald's, adapted in a number of ways in support of its Happy Meal programme. Steps taken included continuing to develop the menu with healthier options, as well as refocusing TV advertising on meal-combinations comprising those healthier items and proactively using the licences to support them. The results were striking; the award winning Shrek 3–themed Happy Meal in 2006, which included renaming menu items as 'Donkey carrot sticks' and 'Puss in Boots milk', evidenced a sea-change by which McDonald's has unashamedly continued to take brand licences, provide premium-with-meal offerings and to TV advertise its Happy Meal programme, all to good effect.

As for the future, there’s little doubt that the regulations are here to stay. There is an ongoing consultation of the advertising codes of practice and a review of the nutrition profiling model for assessing if products are HFSS or not for TV advertising. But the likelihood is that the treatment of food and drink advertising to children, won’t change materially.

In any event, even were this otherwise, it’s probably unrealistic to assume that food and drink producers who turned away from character licensing, or licensors who declared they would no longer licence certain sections of the food industry, would all want to change their position now even if they could.

But on the other hand, in the absence of any immediate prospect of further, more-restrictive regulation to come, added to a general feeling that the food and drink sector has ‘cleaned up its act’ to a large degree, what’s left of the relationship between licensors of children’s brands and the children’s food and drink sector doesn’t look to be in danger of decreasing.

In short, the importance of the food and drink sector to the brand licensing industry has undoubtedly receded under the new regulatory regime, with the impact still being felt by broadcasters due to the vastly reduced TV advertising revenues raised from food and drink advertising. Nonetheless, the reports of the demise of brand licensing to the children’s food and drink sector have undoubtedly been exaggerated. Effective marketing strategies using licensed children’s brands can still remain a reality for many food and drink advertisers who are willing to adapt.

Finally, for a light hearted look at the different regulatory treatment of children’s brands and food and drink, please see this month’s Need To Know article.