Any parent who has ever driven by a McDonald’s with little ones in the back seat knows how hard it can be to resist the lobbying, often made even worse due to the marketing of toys with Happy Meals. And of course, other fast food chains also lure kids in with the latest installment of some toy series, often tied to the latest blockbuster movie.

I’ve been saying for years that it’s only a matter of time until some city or county figures out that a simple change in law is all that’s needed to make such promotions illegal at the local level. (Localities have tremendous public health authority that is often underutilized.) On Tuesday, it finally happened, and I am proud to say, in a county in my home state of California.

Yesterday, I posted the press release from Santa Clara County Supervisor (and Board President) Ken Yeager’s office celebrating the passage of an ordinance that limits to use of toys and other incentives to fast food that meet certain nutrition criteria. As Supervisor Yeager put it:

This ordinance levels the playing field. It helps parents make the choices they want for their children without toys and other freebies luring them toward food that fails to meet basic nutritional standards.

There’s no doubt that luring kids with toys works. The Federal Trade Commission estimated that restaurants sold 1.2 billion meals accompanied by toys to children under 12 in 2006 alone. Further, a 2008 study by the Center for Science in the Public Interest identified 12 restaurants with kids’ meal offerings that routinely exceed the recommended caloric limits for children.  Ten out of 12 of those restaurants offer toys with their kids’ meals.

Now, let’s look at the details of this law, since that often gets lost on the press. It’s not just about toys, it’s about a number of “incentives” and here is how that word is defined:

any toy, game, trading card, admission ticket or other consumer product, whether physical or digital…or any coupon, voucher, ticket, token, code, or password redeemable for or granting digital or other access to [those items previously mentioned.]

And here are some of the nutrition standards that limit the use of such incentives:

More than two hundred (200) calories for a Single Food Item, or more than four-hundred eighty-five (485) calories for a Meal;

More than four-hundred and eighty milligrams (480 mg) of sodium for a Single Food Item, or more than six hundred milligrams (600 mg) of sodium for a Meal;

More than thirty-five percent (35%) of total calories from fat.

Now I don’t think that toys should ever be used as food incentives, regardless of the nutrition standards, and I am concerned about the message that fast food companies should market “healthy food” to kids, but this is a still good start and we have to start somewhere.

So how important is this new law, given that it only applies to the unincorporated areas of one county? I can almost hear the shrugged shoulders and people saying, there goes California again, that wacky state. While Santa Clara County may be just an hour south of San Francisco, and is known for being out in front when it comes to public health, with increasing recognition of the health problems related to childhood obesity and poor eating habits in general, we are probably seeing the beginning of the end for fast food companies using toys to hook kids.

First of all, Santa Clara County was also a leader on menu labeling, along with San Francisco. That idea then trickled up to Sacramento, and California became the first state to enact a similar law. And recently, a federal law passed requiring restaurant chains to post basic nutrition information.

Also, Santa Clara is the home of San Jose, the third largest city in California with more than 7 million residents. While this ordinance does not cover San Jose (due to jurisdictional limitations), if the city council takes up the issue there, it would have a huge impact. Meanwhile other cities known for cutting-edge food policies such as San Francisco and New York, are taking notice. Anyone could be next, and of course, it’s just this domino effect that scares the pants off of Ronald McDonald.

So what happens now? Just like they did with the menu labeling ordinance, it seems likely that the restaurant industry will file a lawsuit, if for no other reason than to scare other cities and counties away from enacting similar bills. Industry could try to challenge the law on First Amendment grounds, but targeting small children with toys and fast food does not exactly sound like protected free speech.

Indeed, I asked the Santa Clara County Counsel’s office if they expect a lawsuit, and here is what Acting County Counsel Miguel Marquez told me today:

I wouldn’t be surprised if the restaurant industry sued the County, but we are confident that any case they bring would be unsuccessful. The California Restaurant Association asserted First Amendment challenges to the menu labeling requirements Santa Clara County (and other localities) adopted two years ago, but they now tout menu labeling as an important service they provide to their customers. We hope the restaurant industry would instead put its resources into designing effective ways to promote healthy eating for children.

So just like with menu labeling, a lawsuit is likely to just be a temporary setback. And, by way of responding to those who might think the County has over-reached, he added:

Local government plays an important role in advancing public health. The restaurant industry often works against parents by luring children into developing a taste for unhealthy foods.

Amen. We need more local leadership like that being displayed by Santa Clara. It’s only a matter of time before McDonald’s and friends sees the writing on the wall and realizes they will have to stop this insidious marketing strategy or risk very bad public relations. And when they do, industry is sure to take all the credit, claim to be responsible corporate partners, and act like they planned it all along.

You can read the full text of the law here and for good local coverage, see the San Jose Mercury News. Also posted here.

Every few years, when sales decline in a flagship brand, the parent company has to figure out how to “refresh the brand” to re-boost sales and keep investors happy. Such is the case now with PepsiCo’s Gatorade line, which has been in a sales slump for three years.

Invented in 1965 by University of Florida researchers, Gatorade is PepsiCo’s third-biggest selling global beverage brand after Pepsi-Cola and Mountain Dew. So when its sales declined 14% last year, this was cause for concern on Wall Street. Enter “G” brands, PepsiCo’s first in a series of marketing strategies aimed at reviving Gatorade sales. If you’ve been wondering what all those G ads were for, you’re not alone. But odds are, you’re also not the target audience.

READ FULL POST

In a previous post I called out Iron Man 2 for its over-the-top product placement and co-branding deals with the likes of Burger King and Dr. Pepper, but now it seems another movie deserves top honors as shameless promoters of all things bad for you. As described by Brandchannel, the new superhero parody, Kick-Ass (I am sorry to have to even type that awful title) hawks no fewer than 40 brands. Here’s how some of the products break down into what’s bad for you, bad for the planet, and/or can maim you or others. PepsiCo scores the highest for most brands under one corporate umbrella (5).

Beverages – 8: Amp Energy Drink, Aquafina, Budweiser, Clover Milk (arguable), Hi-C, Mountain Dew, Sierra Mist, Welch’s

Junk food – 7: Count Chocula, Dunkin’ Donuts, Honey Puffs, Hungry Man, Land-O-Lakes, SunChips, Twizzlers

Cars – 6: Chrysler PT Cruiser, Ford, Ford Mustang, GMC, Range Rover, Rolls Royce

Guns – 4: Beretta, Glock, Heckler & Koch, Steyr (I had to look these up)

Sexually-exploitative dolls: Bratz! (OK, I made a special category for this, but they are awful.)

I suppose that unlike with Iron Man 2, these movie producers could argue that there is no disconnect with superheroes eating and drinking and shooting and driving themselves into oblivion in a parody, but I still say given how popular this movie will be with young people, it’s inexcusable. Yes, the film is rated R, but we all know how teenagers flock to R movies to feel grown up. But if these teens use many of the products promoted in the film, they may not get to.

What do you think?

Ok, so since I don’t watch TV, I am sometimes a tad behind on the latest marketing travesties. But thanks to free TV on Jet Blue airlines, I can catch up. So while traveling last week I saw the KFC ads asking me to support the breast cancer cause by purchasing a bucket of chicken. It was then I realized what I miss most about TV: the outrage.

Here’s the deal: For every pink bucket of cancer-promoting, heart-clogging, animal-torturing fried chicken you purchase, KFC will donate a whopping 50 cents to Susan G. Komen for the Cure. Even more disgusting, as the Komen website explains: “Names of breast cancer survivors and those who have lost their battle with breast cancer will be listed on the sides of the bucket.” (Is that kind of like a war memorial?)

So I was happy this morning to sign Breast Cancer Action’s petition to ask KFC to stop “pinkwashing” — BCA’s term for companies that exploit breast cancer victims in the name of charity. For the complete pinkwashing treatment, you must visit KFC’s Buckets for the Cure.

Then came back this lame reply from Margo Lucero, Susan G. Komen’s director of  “Global Corporate Relations” (a bad sign right there), which first simply repeats the verbiage already on the org’s website:

Thank you for your e-mail to Susan G. Komen for the Cure® – we do appreciate you taking the time to tell us how you feel about this partnership. You should know that our partnership with KFC is designed to help reach millions of women we might not otherwise reach with breast health education and awareness messages which we consider critical to our mission. This additional outreach is made possible through KFC’s 5,300 restaurants (about 900 of them in communities not yet served by a Komen Affiliate). This partnership also helps us to generate funding toward the nearly $1.5 billion in research and community programs that Komen has funded over 30 years – programs that are literally saving women’s lives through better treatments and early detection.

Next comes the excuses, and the troubling framing of food choices being a matter of personal responsibility, not to mention giving KFC props for providing “healthy” choices and nutrition “advice.” (!)

Our partnership focuses on healthy options at KFC – grilled chicken and vegetables, for example. Ultimately, we believe that the decision to maintain a well-balanced diet lies in the hands of the consumer. KFC provides tools to make those choices, by providing a healthy choice menu and advice on its Web site on how consumers can limit fat and calorie consumption in its products.

In other words, we need the cash, so leave us alone. But KFC has the most to gain out of this arrangement. In addition to positive PR, the campaign will of course encourage more purchases, and 50 cents a bucket is well, just a drop in the bucket. Meanwhile, KFC’s parent company, Yum Brands posted an impressive 10 percent increase in profits in the first quarter while revenue topped $2 billion.

You can sign Breast Cancer Action’s petition here and find them on Facebook here.

The opening of the next installment in the blockbuster Iron Man franchise may still be a few weeks away (May 7), but the promotions are in full swing. As Advertising Age describes today, the movie has attracted more than $100 million in media buys, retail tie-ins and giveaways. Of the ten brands listed in the Ad Age article, five promote foods that are are not exactly conducive to Iron Man’s body building image. But who cares about the disconnect, with so many dollars up for grabs. And of course, with so many youngsters likely to see the film, the brand loyalty-building potential is key.

Here, as Ad Age describes them, are the five shameless product placements / co-branding deals:

BURGER KING

A returning sponsor from 2008 (and a co-star in a key scene in which Robert Downey Jr.’s Tony Stark requests a cheeseburger that happens to come from the home of the Whopper), Burger King is upping its “Iron Man” marketing machinery this time around with a major company-wide push that kicks off April 26. The fast-feeder will feature an “Iron Man 2″-branded sandwich, the “Whiplash Whopper,” and eight film-related toys — four for boys and four for girls. A bevy of TV ads targeted separately toward adults and kids will roll out as well, in addition to a heavy online presence at ClubBk.com.

7-ELEVEN

Another repeat partner, 7-Eleven, is executing several marketing firsts on Marvel’s behalf, including its first movie tie-in TV ad to promote its custom “Iron Man” straws, Big Gulp cups and other merchandise, as well as a Live Like a Billionaire Sweepstakes for slurpee.com. The initiative will be supported with radio and web ads as well as a presence on 7-Eleven’s in-store TV network.

LAND O’FROST

Tony Stark sandwiches? Land O’Frost lunchmeats are back with a major two-and-a-half month push that will feature “Iron Man” sweepstakes, TV ads, print placement in major titles such as Family Circle and Ladies Home Journal and an in-store blitz that includes 10 million Land O’Frost packages and point-of-sale materials such as life-size Tony Stark standees.

DR PEPPER

Dr Pepper has already kicked off a three-month ad and retail campaign that includes 14 collectible cans and a series of TV ads featuring “Iron Man” creator Stan Lee. Mr. Fleming told Ad Age that “Iron Man 2″ represents the brand’s first big movie partnership since 2008’s “Indiana Jones & the Crystal Skull.” Even the movie’s director, Jon Favreau, got with the program, posting pictures of the cans on his Twitter feed.

HERSHEY’S

For its first “Iron Man” campaign, Hershey’s is using its Reese’s brand to engage fans in the Marvel universe, much as it did with Warner Bros. for 2008’s “The Dark Knight.” The peanut-butter cup is sponsoring a sweepstakes offering fans a chance to win a walk-on role in an upcoming Marvel movie, and is using “Iron Man 2″-branded packaging in the U.S. and over a dozen global territories. The extensive effort will continue through the end of September.

Here is what I received from Yale after I signed the petition at Change.org to ask the medical school to end its deal with PepsiCo, which I wrote about previously here and here.

Thank you for your recent e-mail regarding the Yale School of Medicine. Dean Alpern has asked the Office of Public Affairs to respond, since you refer to a recent news release which we issued.

The Yale MD/PhD Program is funded by many different public, corporate and private sources. However none of the donors can influence the content – or compromise the quality – of the program, which is considered one of the most rigorous in the country. For almost 200 years, the Yale School of Medicine has maintained the highest standards of academic and research integrity. The nutritional research conducted by Yale clinical scientists addresses important diseases including metabolic syndrome, diabetes and obesity.

Only through the generosity of our many donors can Yale School of Medicine continue to push the frontiers of clinical research and translational medicine.

Sincerely,

–

Charles Robin Hogen Å’70)

Deputy Director of Public Affairs

Yale University

O:203-432-5423

C:203-856-8115

robin.hogen@yale.edu

So let’s write directly to Robin and explain why this won’t cut it.

A few weeks ago I wrote about how the soda and snack-food giant PepsiCo had bought a piece of the Yale School of Medicine (my alma mater – MPH, 1990) by funding a “lab” and a fellowship program. Earlier this week, the Yale Daily News reported, “Critics fizz over Pepsi Gift.” In that article, we learn part of the price tag for the sell-out:

These activists have criticized the soft-drink giant’s decision in December to sponsor a graduate fellowship in the school’s M.D.-Ph.D. program, worth $250,000 over five years, for students who want to perform research on nutrition and obesity-related diseases.

Really, only $50K a year? That’s a pretty cheap price for a company that netted $1.7 billion in one quarter of 2009. If Yale is going to sell its good name, maybe they could negotiate a better deal than that.

But the price to pay may be higher in bad public relations. It’s one thing for the school newspaper to raise questions, but today, the Wall Street Journal, the nation’s most respected business voice took notice. In an opinion piece entitled, “Boola Moolah! Food Fight at Yale,” Eric Felten writes:

PepsiCo is finding out just how hard it is to appease the nutritionistas. Two weeks ago the company was getting kudos in the New Haven Register for setting up a healthy-eating research lab at Yale’s commercial Science Park; for putting a quarter of a million dollars into a doctoral-student fellowship in obesity studies at the Yale School of Medicine; and for agreeing to limit the calories in drinks it sells in schools. “World gets Healthier (Pepsi) Generation” raved the Register’s headline. By this week the cola and snack conglomerate found itself getting smacked for the same good deeds. “Critics fizz over Pepsi gift” was the headline in Monday’s Yale Daily News, reporting that activists are accusing the university of selling out for a few soda-stained dollars. Michele Simon, a Yale School of Public Health grad, was perfectly aghast that her alma mater would have anything to do with such merchants of death: “They own Cheetos, for God’s sake.”

Yale’s School of Medicine dean replied soothingly that the arrangement is “perfectly ethical”—and there’s no reason to doubt that. We aren’t likely to see journal articles flowing from Pepsi Scholars documenting the salubrious properties of high-fructose corn syrup.

The WSJ then hits the nail on the head:

Still, Yale isn’t quite as innocent here as the administration makes out. The Yale Bowl could be renamed PepsiCo Stadium and there would be no suggestion that the arrangement was anything but a mercenary one—a straightforward advertising deal. But the corporate naming game has different implications when it invades the tweedier precincts of campus. When a business gets its name worked into the academic fabric of a school, it is buying something more than a place to slap a corporate insignia. There is the implication that the firm is a partner in the intellectual enterprise.

What both papers fail to mention is that the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, frequently critical of Big Food, is housed at Yale, so it’s hard to view PepsiCo’s motives as pure. With this latest bad press, maybe the powers that be at both Yale HQ and the medical school will see how stupid this move was. It hardly seems worthy of one fellowship.

Also see how the Yale Daily Journal story got spun on the MSNBC web site in an article somewhat mis-titled, “Yale Takes Heat for Pepsi-Funded Obesity Study.”

Please share these articles with others to help keep the pressure on Yale to end this ill-conceived deal. Also, email medical school Dean Robert J. Alpern and/or sign the petition at Change.org. Thank you!

(First posted 4/3 here.)