endorsing children's appetite for healthy foods: celebrity versus non-celebrity...

DE GRUYTER MOUTONDOI 10.1515/commun-2012-0021 Communications 2012; 37(4): 371–391

Tim Smits and Heidi VandeboschEndorsing children’s appetite for healthyfoods: Celebrity versus non-celebrityspokes-charactersAbstract: This paper tests the comparative effectiveness of spokes-characters,both ‘celebrity’ and ‘non-celebrity’, in promoting healthy versus non-healthyfoods. An experimental study among 6- to 7-year-old children in Belgium dem-onstrates that adding a spokes-character (i.e., a gnome) to a food productincreases the appetite, the wished-for frequency of consumption and theexpected number of purchase requests for that product. This finding holds truefor healthy foods (apples and grapes) as well as for unhealthy foods (cookiesand chocolate). The effect of the celebrity spokes-character exceeds that of asimilar (but unknown) gnome. Nevertheless, the latter is also capable of pro-moting the healthy and unhealthy products. These findings suggest that using‘celebrity’ spokes-characters to promote healthy foods to children might indeedbe an effective strategy to change children’s diets. Even the use of similar, non-celebrity (and thus cheaper) spokes-characters could be quite fruitful.

Keywords: spokes-characters, food promotion, children, (non-)celebrity,(un)healthy

Tim Smits: e-mail: [email protected] Vandebosch: e-mail: [email protected]

IntroductionFood advertising is often seen as an important cause of the current obesityepidemic among children (e.g., Dennison and Edmunds, 2008; Lobstein andDibb, 2005). The majority of the TV commercials and print ads targeting chil-dren promote products that are high in fat and sugar (Folta, Goldberg, Econo-mos, Bell, and Meltzer, 2006; Mink, Evans, Moore, Calderon, and Deger, 2010).These commercial messages seem to be effective in influencing attitudes, pur-chase intentions and actual consumption (Andreyeva, Kelly, and Harris, 2011;Buijzen, Schuurman, and Bomhof, 2008). One very common technique in food

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCSAngemeldet | 212.87.45.97

Heruntergeladen am | 06.12.12 12:10

DE GRUYTER MOUTON372 Tim Smits and Heidi Vandebosch

advertising aimed at children is the use of spokes-characters, often in the formof licensed figures (Warren, LeBlanc Wicks, Wicks, Fosu and Chung, 2008).These spokes-characters are also often used in the visual appearance of pro-ducts (such as packaging and displays; Hebden, King, Kelly, Chapman, andInnes-Hughes, 2011; Till, 1998).

The study presented here tests the comparative effectiveness of ‘celebrity’and ‘non-celebrity’ spokes-characters in promoting healthy versus unhealthyfoods. Food endorsement effects on children have been demonstrated earlier(e.g., de Droog, Buijzen, and Valkenburg, in press; de Droog, Valkenburg, andBuijzen, 2011; Roberto, Baik, Harris, and Brownell, 2010; Sesame Workshop,2005). For instance, de Droog et al. (2011) investigated the effects of familiar(i.e., ‘celebrity’) spokes-characters (Dora from Dora the Explorer or SpongeBobfrom SpongeBob SquarePants), an unfamiliar character (i.e., a monkey), or nocharacter (control group) displayed on packages, on children’s (aged 4–6) likingand purchase intent of a healthy snack (chopped bananas in a plastic cup) anda related unhealthy snack (banana candy) in a plastic bag. Brand charactersincreased children’s liking of and purchase intent for the healthy snack, up toa level similar to the unhealthy snack.

Such prior studies demonstrate the persuasive effect of spokes-charactersper se and they demonstrate it for healthy as well as for unhealthy foods irre-spective of the celebrity of the characters. However, these studies’ set-ups donot allow for a direct comparative test of the different endorsers’ degree ofeffectiveness in promoting healthy versus unhealthy foods. It thus remainsunclear whether healthy foods are endorsed as effectively as unhealthy onesand whether celebrity endorsement is as effective as non-celebrity endorse-ment. The present study aims to fill this void. The relevance of such researchwill be demonstrated below. First, we review the literature demonstrating theabundance of food advertising towards children and the use of spokes-charac-ters therein. Second, we discuss the role of advertising for healthy foods.Finally, we will articulate how the present study fills a void in current researchfindings.

Promoting food using spokes-characters

Research in several countries worldwide has shown that children are exposedto a large amount of commercial messages, most of which concern food, andin particular unhealthy food (Kelly et al., 2010), a trend that even extends todeveloping countries (Hastings, McDermott, Angus, Stead, and Thomson,2006). These messages comprise, among others, the child-oriented packaging



DE GRUYTER MOUTON Endorsing children’s appetite 373

of products, the use of child-oriented figures on utensils, sponsorship of events,and, obviously, the prototypical commercial messages encountered in differentkinds of media. Consistently, food advertising constitutes a large proportion ofall advertising directly targeted to children, and this appears to be a worldwidephenomenon (Kelly et al., 2010; Lobstein and Dibb, 2005). The same holds truefor other types of media, such as print media (e.g., Mueller, Wulfemeyer, andCastonguay, 2011) and child-oriented websites (Sandberg, 2011). Other recentcontent analyses, often designed to detect assumed (positive) changes in foodadvertising over the last years, only confirm the findings of earlier studies (see,for instance, Kunkel, McKinley, and Stitt, 2008; Powell, Szczypka, Chaloupka,and Braunschweig, 2007; Warren, LeBlanc Wicks, Wicks, Fosu, and Chung,2007).

When targeting children, marketers often make use of spokes-characters(Kelly et al., 2010; Warren et al., 2008). Consistent with prior research (Callcottand Lee, 1994; Garretson and Niedrich, 2004; Phillips, 1996), we considerspokes-characters to be fictional persona used to promote a product or brand.These characters appear, among others, on the packaging, the distribution,online web content and advertisements of the products or brands they endorse(see, for instance, Hastings et al., 2006; Story and French, 2004; Warwick, McIl-veen, and Strugnell, 1997). Following Callcott and Lee (1995), who proposed amulti-dimensional framework for defining and identifying advertising charac-ters, we differentiate between celebrity and non-celebrity spokes-characters (seeBoyland, Harrold, Kirkham, and Halford, 2011; Castonguay, Kunkel, Wright, andDuff, 2012; de Droog et al., 2011, for a related distinction between ‘brand equity’,‘trade’ or ‘brand’ characters and ‘licensed’ characters). Non-celebrity charactershave been developed specifically to promote a product. If successful, they canbecome famous over time as well, though they were originally used in advertise-ments as non-celebrity unlicensed figures. Examples of this type include Ches-ter Cheetah, Tony the Tiger, Elsie the Cow, and Ronald McDonald. Celebrity (or‘licensed’) spokes-characters, on the other hand, appeared first in children’sbooks, movies, television shows, and video games, and were subsequently usedto market products (e.g., Bugs Bunny and Bart Simpson) (see also Campbell,2006, p. 460).

Spokes-characters have been used traditionally to endorse unhealthy foods,and only recently they have sometimes endorsed more healthy alternatives(IOM, 2006). In a cross-national content analysis of major child-oriented TVchannels (Kelly et al., 2010), up to 49 % of food ads displayed promotionalcharacters. In a study focusing on Australian TV (Kelly, Hattersley, King, andFlood, 2008), food advertisements broadcast during children’s peak viewingtimes, compared to non-peak times, contained more promotional characters




and premium offers. Again, the majority of advertisements containing these so-called ‘persuasive marketing techniques’ during all viewing periods were for‘non-core’ foods. Boyland and colleagues (2011) recently reported similar obser-vations for UK commercial television channels. Dixon, Scully, Wakefield, White,and Crawford (2007; see also Seiter, 1993) too, noticed a tendency towards amore extensive use of animation in ads for unhealthy foods while preparingtheir experiment:

In sampling food ads from children’s TV we noted both a paucity of healthy food ads anda tendency for healthy food ads to be parent- and health-oriented compared to junk foodads, which frequently employ lively, youth-oriented animation and themes of fun andadventure without reference to health content. (p. 1321)

The use of spokes-characters is also far from limited to TV advertising. Chap-man, Nicholas, Banovic, and Supramaniam (2006) found that in Australiansupermarkets, up to 35 % of children food products used promotional tactics,of which 75 % comprised the use of spokes-characters. Again, the majority offood promotions was for unhealthy foods.

It is clear that especially the use of licensed or ‘celebrity’ (versus non-celeb-rity) animated spokes-characters is a common technique for the promotion ofunhealthy foods to children. The Teletubbies, The Simpsons, Shrek, and manyother internationally popular characters from TV-shows and movies were partof the marketing campaigns for fast food restaurants, savory snacks, et cetera(Connor, 2006; Dalmeny, Hanna, and Lobstein, 2003; Kunkel et al., 2008; Linnand Novosat, 2008). A very recent content analysis of commercials aired duringchildren’s programming on TV channels in the U.S. (Castonguay et al., 2012),for instance, shows that licensed characters appeared in one over six foodadvertisements. These licensed characters were featured most frequently incommercials for ‘Whoa’ foods (58,6 %) and ‘Slow’ foods (41,4 %). However,none promoted the healthiest ‘Go’ foods.

Past research has shown that the effectiveness of spokes-characters maydepend on several characteristics. Research on the influence of different kindsof spokes-characters on children has shown that ‘likeability’ plays an importantrole. Young children (3- to 7-year-olds) tend to prefer anthropomorphism andfantasy figures, while older children start to like more “edgy” characters likeBart Simpson (Acuff and Reiher, 1997). Furthermore, it appears that the ‘famili-arity’ with the spokes-character (through repeated exposure in the mass media)enhances the likeability and (in this way) increases the ‘power’ of the spokes-character, thus predicting a stronger endorsement effect for celebrity endorsers.For instance, in the study of Lapierre, Snyder and D’alessandro (2006) among40 first grade students in a small New England town, the familiarity of trade




characters (all originally developed for advertising goals, cf. the ‘non-celebrity’spokes-characters) was related to their liking of the character. The liking of agiven character was in its turn linked to a parent report of purchase requestsfor the promoted products. ‘Familiarity’ also seemed to play an important rolein the research of Neeley and Schumann (2004) amongst pre-school children(2- to 5-year-olds). These authors found that the unknown spokes-charactersthey used in their experiment were able to generate high levels of attention,character recognition and liking, and product recognition and liking. However,these high levels of recognition and liking did not necessarily transfer to highrates of product preference, intention, or choice. They concluded that “perhapsa relatively new character may be recognized and invoke liking, but mass expo-sure is needed to influence preference and/or choice” (p. 20).

Initial likeability (based on their personality, behavior and appearance) andfamiliarity (through their repetitive presence in the mass media) thus seem toenhance the persuasiveness of spokes-characters. Some authors suggest that‘celebrity spokes-characters’ even outstand long-lasting ‘non-celebrity spokes-characters’. Lapierre and colleagues (2006), for example, phrased it this way:“The characters we used for our study are used only for advertising a product,so we are left to wonder what the effect popular child icons (e.g., Dora theExplorer, Spiderman, SpongeBob SquarePants) have on liking and purchaserequests” (p. 16).

Promoting healthy foods

The question now arises whether the use of spokes-characters could also helpto promote healthy foods among children. The use of this marketing communi-cation technique would be an answer to the call of several authors to aimhealthy food advertisements directly at children (instead of their parents)(Eagle, Bulmer, de Bruin, and Kitchen, 2004, p. 52; Pires and Agante, 2011),and to pay more attention to “the feeling or emotional side” of the advertise-ments (Gorn and Goldberg, 1982). These calls are based on the results of severalstudies indicating that the traditional ways of promoting healthy foods are not(that) successful. An experimental study of Dixon et al. (2007), for instance, didseem to provide some support for the hypothesis that children exposed tohealthy food ads would show more favorable attitudes and intentions towardhealthy foods and higher nutrition knowledge than children who were notexposed to healthy food ads. Parallel to other findings (Dovey, Staples, Gibson,and Halford, 2008; Gorn and Goldberg, 1982; Scammon and Christopher, 1981)the authors assumed that the limited effects they found could be due to the




fact that they had sampled ‘real’ ads for healthy foods, which might have beenmore parent- and health-oriented. They suggested that further research shouldsystematically assess children’s responses to healthy food ads with differentmessage appeals and executional characteristics.

More recently, a number of studies have addressed this issue more thor-oughly. For instance, Roberto and colleagues (2010) used Dora the Explorer,Scooby Doo, and Shrek as endorsers for crackers, fruit snacks and baby carrots.The children, five years old on average, tasted each of these products and oneach trial were presented with one food in two versions: one in a clear packag-ing and precisely the same food with the endorser’s sticker on the packaging(cf. the design in Robinson, Borzekowski, Matheson, and Kraemer, 2007). Thechildren had a clear preference for the foods that were endorsed by the celebrityspokes-character, although for the healthiest option (the baby carrots) this pref-erence was not significant. Thus, endorsers are effective, but to what extent canthey promote healthy foods?

De Droog et al. (in press) demonstrated that carrots can be effectivelyendorsed by characters. They used another type of within-subjects designwherein children (4 to 6 years old) were sequentially presented endorsed car-rots, and the characters that used to do so differed between presentations. Itwas either a celebrity character (Dora for girls or Diego for boys), or a non-celebrity (unknown) character differing in relevance with regard to promotinga carrot. Children had better attitudes for the known and relevant character-with-carrot pairings than for the irrelevant (or “incongruent”) characters. How-ever, there was no control group or baseline measure, so it is still unclearwhether these characters were truly effective. Did the familiar or relevant char-acter create attitudes that were more positive than those in a no-endorsementsituation?

De Droog and colleagues (2011) answer this latter question. They used abetween-subjects design where each child (4 to 6 years old) judged a bananacandy (unhealthy) and a chopped-up banana. These items were endorsed differ-ently by either a celebrity (SpongeBob for boys and Dora for girls), a non-celeb-rity monkey character, or no character (control condition). Researchers assessedthe children’s liking and purchase request intentions for both foods. Relative tothe control condition, children liked both the healthy and the unhealthy foodmore if it was endorsed, and no difference in endorsement effectiveness wasobserved for the celebrity versus non-celebrity character, though others previ-ously argued that celebrity characters would yield stronger effects (see above).However, the between-subjects design did not allow for a direct test of howmuch individual increases in liking and request intentions were due to addinga spokes-character. Likewise, their design did not allow a direct test of the




comparative power in endorsements for healthy versus unhealthy food. Rather,they demonstrate that there merely is an effect.

This latter issue will be dealt with in the present study. As in de Droog andcolleagues (2011), we will study healthy and unhealthy foods and celebrity ver-sus non-celebrity spokes-characters endorsing them. In contrast to previousresearch, we will apply a repeated measures design, first assessing a baselineliking, wanting and purchase request intention for each food without a spokes-character. Then, the children will see the food again, this time endorsed by aspokes-character, and assess whether this results in an increased score in thosementioned variables. This design will allow for a direct test of the persuasivepower of the endorsers as a within-subjects difference between the baselinemeasure and the follow-up measure. As such it supplements the current litera-ture that hitherto used other designs.

To measure the effects of celebrity versus non-celebrity spokes-characterswithout interference of other potentially important factors (such as the congru-ency with the product), we will use the same type of character (i.e., a gnome)for both the ‘celebrity’ and the ‘non-celebrity’ condition in our study. Since itis also not unlikely that consumers (and children in particular) might perceiveunhealthy products that are promoted using explicit (verbal and non-verbal)references to natural products (such as ‘banana’ candy) as rather ‘healthy’, andhealthy products that have been processed (such as chopped bananas in a plas-tic can) as less natural and healthy (Roe, Levy, and Derby, 1999; van Trijp andvan der Lans, 2007), we also opt for an experiment using products which fitmore easily into one category or the other (apples and grapes as ‘healthy food’versus cookies and chocolate as ‘unhealthy food’).

Hence, our research hypotheses and research question read as follows:

H1: Adding a (celebrity or non-celebrity) spokes-character will have a positive effect onthe reported frequency of consumption, current appetite and asking for (healthy orunhealthy) foods.

H2: Among children, a celebrity spokes-character (i.e., a licensed figure) will have moreeffect on the reported frequency of consumption, current appetite, and asking for (healthyand unhealthy) food than a similar non-celebrity spokes-character.

RQ1: Which foods – unhealthy or healthy foods – profit more from the use of (celebrityor unknown) spokes-characters among children?




MethodParticipants

Fifty-seven Belgian (Flemish) primary school children participated in theexperiment, of which twenty-seven were boys and thirty were girls (mean age =6.8 years). (Although rather small, this sample size is comparable to Neeley andSchumann’s (2004) sample size. Moreover, the design is experimental, focusingon the differences due to the manipulations rather than on providing repre-sentative data on the absolute level.) These children stemmed from two differentclasses for 6- to 7-year-olds in two (comparable) schools and were asked toparticipate during school hours. We chose to investigate children of the firstgrade, because they are supposed to be avid consumers of TV-programs (espe-cially children’s programs) and thus acquainted with popular TV figures.Although they are on the edge of two cognitive developmental stages (the pre-operational and the concrete-operational), their advertising literacy skills arestill limited (e.g., until the age of ten, they can recognize advertising from othercontents but are not fully aware of the advertisers’ goals nor of the strategiesthey use) (Rozendaal, Buijzen, and Valkenburg, 2011). Moreover, in Belgianschools, these children are more likely to be familiar with one-to-one-situations(e.g., teacher – pupil interactions) in a classroom context, in this way makingthe experimental conditions less superficial. All children participated voluntar-ily, and with the approval of their teacher and parents.

Materials and measurements

During the interview with each individual child, the researcher filled in a stand-ardized questionnaire. Irrespective of between-subjects manipulations, eachchild was asked two sets of questions, a baseline measurement and a follow-up measurement where the manipulation was induced. Both for the baselinemeasurement and the follow-up measurement, each set of questions wasrepeated for four types of food: grapes, chocolate, apples, and cookies. Forboth measurements and all four food types, participants were asked to indicatefrequency of consumption, current appetite, and the extent to which they askedtheir parents to buy such foods (cf. the concept of “pester power”; see, forinstance: Marshall, O’Donohoe, and Kline, 2007; McDermott, O’Sullivan, Stead,and Hastings, 2006). All questions were in Likert format.

The “consumption frequency” and the “frequency of purchase requests”were measured by asking the children how often they ate/asked their parents,




respectively, to buy the food that was shown on a picture. The children couldindicate their answer on a 10-point scale (ranging from “never” to “every day”).For the appetite question, we used a five-point question, labeled for each pointand, except for the answer “no appetite at all”, assisted with pictures showingincreasing portion sizes (see Figure 1). The pictorial representations were usedto objectify the response scales. For the follow-up measurement, the same pic-tures of the foods were used, but this time these were accompanied by a gnome(who functioned as an endorser of the food, see Figure 2). The “consumptionfrequency” and the “frequency of purchase requests” now referred to futurebehavior (after exposure to the manipulation) and were therefore rephrased asfollows: “How often are you planning to eat this food?” and “How often areyou planning to ask your parents to buy this food?” It took between twelve andtwenty minutes to complete the questionnaire.

Figure 1: Example of appetite scale.

Figure 2: Experimental stimuli: celebrity endorser “Kabouter Plop” (left, a licensed characterproduced by Studio100) and non-celebrity endorser “Kabouter Karel” (right).




Procedure and design

In the first phase of the experiment, children provided baseline ratings for allfour food types concerning the three variables of interest. The four foods werechosen such that two items represented healthy foods (i.e., grapes and apples)and the other two unhealthy ones (i.e., chocolate and cookies), as such con-structing a within-subjects variable food type.

For the second phase, two spokes-characters were added. Both spokes-char-acters were gnomes allegedly promoting two foods (one healthy and oneunhealthy). One spokes-character was a local ‘celebrity’ gnome (“KabouterPlop”; known by all children in the dataset), who is the main character of atelevision show (with dressed-up humans), several movies, and cartoons aimedat (younger) children. This celebrity spokes-character is also used as a licensed(cartoon) figure to promote several kinds of toys, clothing and foods to children.The other spokes-character was a more generic gnome, like the ones that aretypically bought as garden items in Belgium. In communicating with the chil-dren, the experimenter called this gnome “Kabouter Karel”, a randomly chosenname. All children responded during the baseline measurement that they didnot know this gnome. To operationalize the endorsement, the four food typeswere split up in two sets such that grapes and chocolate always shared thesame gnome and apples and cookies shared the other gnome. Participants thusencountered both spokes-characters, but the distribution of this endorser overthe four foods was manipulated between subjects whereas the two food setsconstituted a within-subjects variable. Participants in this second phase firstrated two foods endorsed by the same gnome, then the two remaining foodsendorsed by the other gnome. To control for order effects in the presentationof gnomes, half the participants first rated the foods endorsed by the populargnome while the other participants first rated the foods endorsed by the genericgnome.

Together, this resulted in a 2 (Food type: healthy vs. unhealthy) x 2 (Foodset) x 2 (Gnome type distribution over set) x 2 (Gnome order: popular first vs.generic first) design, of which the first two variables were manipulated within-subjects and the latter two between-subjects. Participants were randomly dis-tributed over the four between-subjects conditions, with both variables beingorthogonally manipulated. The random distribution was based on the rankorder of the participant on the participant list. There were three types ofdependent variables: frequency of consumption, current appetite, and the fre-quency of purchase requests towards parents. For all dependent variables therewas a baseline measurement and a follow-up measurement in the manipulationphase.




ResultsDescriptive statistics and preliminary analyses

All participants seemed to be able to interpret the five-point appetite scale andthe ten-point “frequency of consumption” and “frequency of parents purchaserequests” scales correctly. On average, the baseline measurement showed thatchildren had a moderate to substantial appetite for all four food types. On ascale ranging from zero to four, apples were best-liked (M = 2.93, SD = 1.22),followed by cookies (M = 2.75, SD = .99), grapes (M = 2.65, SD = .97) and choco-late (M = 1.96, SD = 1.18). Appetite scores were higher for apples than for theaverage of the three other foods (t = 2.74, p = .008) and lower for chocolatethan for the three other foods (t = -5.13, p < .0001). These differences could alsobe due to the actual food portions used to depict the scale points (see Figure 1for an example). However, similar differences occurred with regard to the fre-quency of consumption of these food types with apples being reported as mostfrequently consumed (M = 5.46, SD = 2.68), followed by cookies (M = 5.28, SD =2.24), grapes (M = 4.26, SD = 2.73) and chocolate (M = 3.96, SD = 2.5). Lastly,these differences were also more or less reflected in purchase requests, thoughthese scores were low for all four food types (apples: M = 1.18, SD = 1.35; cook-ies: M = 1.3, SD = 1.46; grapes: M = 1.12, SD = 1.57; chocolate: M = 1, SD = 1.3).None of these between-food differences in requests were significant.

More importantly, an ANOVA (analysis of variance) with both between-sub-jects variables (gnome type distribution and gnome order) on the baseline appe-tite scores did not show any main effect between the conditions (all Fs(1,54) <1.31, all ps > .20). The same goes for a similar analysis on the consumptionfrequency (all Fs(1,54) < 1.68, p > .20) and purchase request frequency (allFs(1,54) < 1.43, p > .20). Nonetheless, when taking interaction effects intoaccount, some of these did become significant. This further warrants the useof difference scores in the analysis of the effect of the manipulations ratherthan focusing solely on the follow-up measure as previous research has done.

Analyses

In order to analyze the effect of our different manipulations, we investigatedthe difference scores for each participant for each variable between the baselinemeasurement and the follow-up measurement. We then subjected these differ-ence scores to a mixed-effects ANOVA, with food type as a within-subjects vari-able and gnome type distribution and gnome order as between-subjects vari-




ables. We also subjected these difference scores to planned comparisons, basedupon the specific hypotheses.

With regard to appetite, all difference scores significantly exceeded zero(see Table 1), demonstrating an overall positive endorsement effect that washypothesized (Hypothesis 1). Irrespective of the different conditions, the chil-dren thus showed greater appetite in the follow-up measurement. The rankorder in increase in reported appetite is the inverse of the rank order of priorappetite, which suits the idea of a ceiling effect. When subjected to an ANOVA,these difference scores did not show effects of the between-subjects variablesor their interactions (all Fs(1,53) < 1.83, p > .18). However, several within-subjectseffects occurred. Because of the complex design, the effects are depicted perfood type in Figure 3. First, the set with grapes and chocolate produced greaterdifferences than the set with apples and cookies (F(1,53) = 5.47, p = .02). Moreimportantly, the interaction with how these sets were linked with the twognomes also produced a significant effect (F(1,53) = 4.43, p = .04). This effectboils down to a stronger endorsement by the celebrity gnome (M = .96, SD =.77) than by the non-celebrity gnome (M = .64, SD = .83), thus corroboratingHypothesis 2. Still, for both endorsers, the difference scores significantlyexceeded zero (ts > 5, p < .0001), which indicates that even the non-celebritygnome did produce an endorsement effect. As such, Hypothesis 1 is also con-firmed. Irrespective of the type of gnome, the two unhealthy foods showed astronger increase in appetite answers (M = .93, SD = .72) than the two healthyones (M = .68, SD = .68; F(1,53) = 4.63, p = .04). No interaction effect occurred,indicating that the celebrity of the gnome did not differentially affect the appe-tite for healthy versus unhealthy foods. Concerning the research question of theendorsement potential for healthy versus unhealthy foods, the ANOVA did notproduce a significant effect, but a planned comparison did (t(56) = 2.14, p =.04). Unhealthy foods showed larger endorsement effects (M = .93, SD = .72)than healthy foods (M = .68, SD = .69), though both were significantly positive(both t(56) > 7.5, p < .0001).

Next, a similar analysis approach was carried out for the consumption fre-quency. Again, all difference scores reached significance (see Table 1). Here,the ANOVA only produced one significant effect. As was predicted, and similarto the analysis on the appetite measure, the interaction between the sets offood stimuli with the endorsing gnomes reached significance (F(1,53) = 8.43,p = .01). Again, this is due to a stronger difference for items endorsed by thecelebrity gnome (M = 2.23, SD = 1.88) than for items endorsed by the non-celebrity gnome (M = 1.19, SD = 2.04). Again, both difference scores significantlyexceeded zero (ts > 4.4, p < .0001). Thus, Hypothesis 1 and 2 are also confirmedfor this dependent variable. Again, the ANOVA did not indicate a difference




t (57) M SD

Apples Appetite 4.20 .53 .95Frequency 4.09 1.26 2.33Asking 10.28 4.77 3.51

Cookies Appetite 5.78 .72 .94Frequency 3.90 1.49 2.89Asking 12.70 5.56 3.31

Grapes Appetite 6.45 .82 .97Frequency 5.81 2.56 3.33Asking 10.20 5.26 3.89

Chocolate Appetite 7.35 1.14 1.17Frequency 4.32 1.53 2.67Asking 10.85 4.72 3.28

All ts were significant at < .001.

Table 1: Difference scores for appetite, frequency of eating and asking from parents.

Figure 3: Baseline and follow-up measurement for the four food types. Solid lines are for thecelebrity endorser and dashed lines for the non-celebrity endorser.




between healthy and unhealthy products. Neither did a planned comparisonfor this dependent variable (t(56) = 1.11, p = .27; healthy: M = 1.91, SD = 2.15;unhealthy: M = 1.51, SD = 1.79).

As for the purchase requests, the difference scores again differed signifi-cantly from zero (see Table 1). The ANOVA produced two significant effects (nextto a higher order interaction that we will not discuss here). Again confirmingthe second hypothesis, the interaction between the sets of food stimuli with theendorsing gnomes emerged (F(1,53) = 57.54, p < .0001), due to a greater differ-ence found for items endorsed by the celebrity gnome (M = 6.53, SD = 2.66)than for items endorsed by the non-celebrity gnome (M = 3.63, SD = 2.95). Againconfirming the first hypothesis, both difference scores significantly exceededzero (ts > 9, p < .0001). The sets also produced a difference for healthy versusunhealthy foods (F(1,53) = 6.41, p = .01). In a planned comparison, however,the difference between healthy and unhealthy foods did not reach significance(t(56) = .432, p = .67; healthy: M = 5.02, SD = 2.8; unhealthy: M = 5.14, SD =2.49).

To conclude, the experimental study provided clear answers to our hypoth-eses and a mixed answer to our research question. First, spokes-characters hadindeed a positive effect on the appetite, the (intended) consumption frequencyand the (intended) frequency of parents purchase requests for the foods theyendorsed. Second, as predicted, the celebrity spokes-character had a strongereffect on these measures than the non-celebrity one, although the latter stillresulted in a clear and significant rise. Third, this increase seemed somewhatstronger for unhealthy than for healthy foods, although it still was significantfor the healthy ones.

DiscussionThe results of our study indicate that adding a spokes-character (i.e., a gnome)to a food product increases the appetite, the (intended) frequency of consump-tion and the (intended) frequency of parent requests for that product among 6-to 7-year-old children. This finding holds true for healthy foods as well as forunhealthy foods. The effect of the celebrity spokes-character is in all casesgreater than the effect of a similar (but unknown) gnome. Nevertheless, thelatter is also significantly capable of promoting the healthy and unhealthy pro-ducts.

These findings provide a scientific basis for the policy guidelines that havebeen formulated in the past to reduce obesity amongst youngsters (see, forinstance: Kaiser Foundation, 2004; Livingstone and Helsper, 2004). Both limit-




ing the use of celebrity endorsers for the promotion of unhealthy foods (cf. therecommendations of the Institute of Medicine (IOM, 2006) and the InteragencyWorking Group on Food Marketed to Children of the Federal Trade Commission(FTC, 2011) in the USA) as well as stimulating the use of licensed figures topromote healthy foods to children, might indeed be effective strategies tochange children’s diets. Moreover, our research results suggest that even theuse of similar, non-celebrity (read: cheaper) spokes-characters could be quitefruitful. The latter finding is particularly relevant since the advertising budgetsfor ‘healthy’ foods and the budgets for public health campaigns are often muchsmaller than those for unhealthy, highly processed foods (Gallo, 1999). Usingnon-celebrity characters in messages for healthy products is thus one way tokeep the costs low. In addition, the rise of several new online advertising media(e.g., advergames) has created (cheaper) channels to reach (young) target audi-ences. Recent research (Lee, Choi, Quilliam, and Cole, 2009; Phillips and Lee,2005) suggests that using spokes-characters in this online context might be evenmore effective than using spokes-characters in traditional mass media, becauseof the interactivity that these new media allow.

As formulated in the hypotheses and research question of this paper, themain aim of this study was to compare the effects of adding a celebrity spokes-character versus a non-celebrity spokes-character to a healthy or unhealthyfood product. To do this, we used stimuli whereby a simple presentation of thefood was shown first without and later with a graphical presentation of a well-known versus an unknown gnome. We chose “Kabouter Plop” as our celebrityspokes-character, because it was expected that both girls and boys would knowthis figure. The baseline figures indicated that this was indeed the case (andthat “Kabouter Karel”, on the other hand, was not known to any of them). Inour study we did not measure other possible attributes that might contribute tothese spokes-characters’ effect (such as their attractiveness, credibility, or‘product match’).

The positive effect observed for the non-celebrity gnome might be explainedby the favorable image of this figure (based on his friendly physical appearance;Acuff and Reiher, 1997), or perhaps the existing cultural stereotypes surround-ing gnomes as mythical figures, that was consequently transferred to the foodproducts. The additional power of the celebrity gnome could be due to severalfactors: the repeated exposure to this figure in several kinds of media (cf. themere-exposure effect), but probably also a more in-depth knowledge (and con-sequent liking) of this character (cf. Lapierre, Snyder, and D’alessandro, 2006).It should also be noted that at the time of the study there were already cookiessold endorsed by “Kabouter Plop” (who actually bakes cookies in his TV series).As such, the strongest endorsement effect of this celebrity endorser for the




cookies could be due to a congruency effect, as suggested by de Droog et al.(2011).

Given the fact that children of 6 to 7 years old are in fact on the edge oftwo developmental phases (which was also evident during the interview, whichseemed to be more ‘challenging’ to some children than to others), it is notunthinkable that other (less ‘childish’) spokes-characters can even generatemore effect among the (more cognitively developed) children. A greater influ-ence might also be exerted by more professional and animated stimuli (suchas real commercials instead of still graphical images). Future research shouldtherefore concentrate on what kind of spokes-characters work best for whatkind of children. It is not only interesting to explicitly investigate the relation-ship between the cognitive stage a child is in and its preference for certainkinds of characters, but also to take into account other background characteris-tics (such as children’s gender). Furthermore it is worthwhile to study the linkbetween characters and products: Do some spokes-characters indeed generatebetter effects for some types of products (such as healthy or unhealthy foods)than others?

Applying the repeated measures design in our research had some clear-cutbenefits. First, the design provides a natural within-subjects control condition.For each participant we can assess the endorser’s unique effect on productliking. Second and related with this, we are sure that the reported effects arenot due to uncontrolled-for between-subjects differences (e.g., differences withregard to the ‘hunger state’, which might be related to the exact time of theinterview). Third, and particularly important with regard to the healthy foodsinvestigated, this design corresponds naturally to a situation where children arealready acquainted with a product that only later becomes associated with aspokes-character. Indeed, most healthy foods are basic products that are likelyto be known to consumers, even children. This does not imply that the resultsare not relevant for the case of unhealthy food. There as well, real-life situationsexist where products only later become associated with a spokes-character orwhere within a set of products some are not endorsed by spokes-characterswhereas others are. Despite the benefits of the design, one limitation can bepinpointed. We did not include a separate control condition. Such a conditionwould verify whether the mere repetition of pre- and post-test results inincreased liking of the product. The repeated presentation of the exact samestimuli with the exact same questions would come across as very artificial and,therefore, we did not include it in the design.

In line with previous research (see, for instance, Gorn and Goldberg, 1982),our study also indicates that young children are already aware of what foodsare considered healthy or unhealthy, as is apparent from the results of the




baseline measurements. When asked for their current appetite, the frequencyof consumption and the parents purchase requests for four foods, the respon-dents’ answers reflected the following rank order (from highest to lowest):apples, cookies, grapes and chocolate. After the experiment children admittedthat their parents (and other adults) had often warned them for the negativeconsequences of eating unhealthy foods. Cookies and chocolate were said tomake children sick or fat, and to cause dental problems.

Children’s answers to the initial questions might thus be skewed to whatthey believe is ‘socially desirable’. Nevertheless, the mere presence of a spokes-character seems to lead to a higher (intended) frequency of consumption andpurchase requests and a higher appetite for both healthy and unhealthy foods.In the latter case, the implicit approval by what might be regarded by the chil-dren as an authority figure may thus counteract the pressure of parents, teach-ers, etc. On the other hand, the high scores for the ‘fruits’ seem to be in linewith the results of a recent study of Nicklas et al. (2011) about the impact offruit and vegetable commercials on the food preferences of low-income minoritypreschoolers. These authors also found that the baseline preference scores forfruits (i.e., apples and bananas) were high, contrary to those for the vegetables(i.e., broccoli and carrots). If the answers of children are indeed (already)skewed to what is socially desirable, then it could be expected that this pressureworks the same way for all healthy foods (and not only fruits). Therefore theanswers of children to the fruit question(s) can also reflect ‘real’ preferences.Focusing on how disliked healthy foods (e.g., vegetables) could be promotedusing spokes-characters might therefore be a more relevant issue for futureresearch (as is also evident from the study by Nicklas et al., 2011; see alsoSesame Workshop, 2005, for a study on broccoli liking). Another obvious stepwould be to measure whether the reported attitudinal effects have true behav-ioral implications as well.

BionotesTim Smits is Assistant Professor at the Institute for Media Studies of the Univer-sity of Leuven.

Heidi Vandebosch is Associate Professor at the Department of CommunicationStudies of the University of Antwerp.




NoteThe authors would like to thank Tim Van Stevens for gathering the data.

ReferencesAcuff, D. S., & Reiher, R. H. (1997). What kids buy and why. The psychology of marketing to

kids. New York: Free Press.Andreyeva, T., Kelly, I. R., & Harris, J. L. (2011). Exposure to food advertising on television:

Associations with children’s fast food and soft drink consumption and obesity.Economics and Human Biology, 9, 221–233.

Boyland, E. J., Harrold, J. A., Kirkham, T. C., & Halford, J. C. G. (2011). Persuasive techniquesused in television advertisements to market foods to UK children. Appetite, 58, 658–664.

Buijzen, M., Schuurman, J., & Bomhof, E. (2008). Associations between children’s televisionadvertising exposure and their food consumption patterns: A household diary-surveystudy. Appetite, 50, 231–239.

Callcott, M. F., & Lee, W.-N. (1994). A content analysis of animation and animated spokes-characters in television commercials. Journal of Advertising, 23, 1–12.

Callcott, M. F., & Lee, W.-N. (1995). Establishing the spokes-character in academic inquiry:Historical overview and framework for definition. Advances in Consumer Research, 22,144–151.

Campbell, A. J. (2006). Restricting the marketing of junk food to children by productplacement and character selling. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 39, 447–505.

Castonguay, J., Kunkel, D., Wright, P., & Duff, C. (2012). Healthy characters: A contentanalysis of food advertisements using familiar children’s characters. Paper presented atthe annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Phoenix (AZ),USA.

Chapman, K., Nicholas, P., Banovic, D., & Supramaniam, R. (2006). The extent and nature offood promotion directed to children in Australian supermarkets. Health PromotionInternational, 21, 331–339.

Connor, S. M. (2006). Food-related advertising on preschool television: Building brandrecognition in young viewers. Pediatrics, 118, 1478–1485.

Dalmeny, K., Hanna, H., & Lobstein, T. (2003). Broadcasting bad health. Why food marketingto children needs to be controlled. A report for the World Health Organizationconsultation on a global strategy for diet and health. London: International Associationof Consumer Food Organization.

de Droog, S. M., Buijzen, M., & Valkenburg, P. M. (in press). Use a rabbit or a rhino to sell acarrot? The effect of character-product congruence on children’s liking of healthy foods.Journal of Health Communication.

de Droog, S. M., Valkenburg, P. M., & Buijzen, M. (2011). Using brand characters to promoteyoung children’s liking of and purchase requests for fruit. Journal of HealthCommunication, 16, 79–89.

Dennison, B. A., & Edmunds, L. S. (2008). The role of television in childhood obesity.Progress in Pediatric Cardiology, 25(2), 191–197.




Dixon, H. G., Scully, M. L., Wakefield, M. A., White, V. M., & Crawford, D. A. (2007). Theeffects of television advertisements for junk food versus nutritious food on children’sfood attitudes and preferences. Social Science & Medicine, 65, 1311–1323.

Dovey, T. M., Staples, P. A., Gibson, E. L., & Halford, J. C. G. (2008). Food neophobia and‘picky/fussy’ eating in children: A review. Appetite, 50, 181–193.

Eagle, L. C., Bulmer, S. L., de Bruin, A. M. & Kitchen, P. J. (2004). Exploring the link betweenobesity and advertising in New Zealand. Journal of Marketing Communications, 10(1),49–67.

Federal Trade Commission (2011). Interagency working group on food marketed to children:Preliminary proposed nutrition principles to guide industry self-regulatory efforts.Retrieved July 9, 2012 from http://www.ftc.gov/os/2011/04/110428foodmarketproposedguide.pdf.

Folta, S. C., Goldberg, J. P., Economos, C., Bell, R., & Meltzer, R. (2006). Food advertisingtargeted at school-age children: A content analysis. Journal of Nutrition Education andBehavior, 38(4), 244–248.

Gallo, A. (1999). Food advertising in the United States. In E. Frazao (Ed.), America’s eatinghabits: Changes and consequences. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture.

Garretson, J. A. & Niedrich, R. W. (2004). Spokes-characters: Creating character trust andpositive brand attitudes. Journal of Advertising, 33, 25–36.

Gorn, G. J. & Goldberg, M. E. (1982). Behavioral evidence of the effects of televised foodmessages on children. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 200–205.

Hastings, G., McDermott, L., Angus, K., Stead, M., & Thomson, S. (2006). The extent, natureand effects of food promotion to children: A review of the evidence. Technical paperprepared for the World Health Organization.

Hebden, L., King, L., Kelly, B., Chapman, K., & Innes-Hughes, C. (2011). A menagerie ofpromotional characters: Promoting food to children through food packaging. Journal ofNutrition Education and Behavior, 43(5), 349–355.

Institute of Medicine (IOM) (2006). Food marketing to children: Threat or opportunity?Committee on Food Marketing and the Diets of Children and Youth. Washington, DC:National Academies Press.

Kaiser Foundation (2004). The role of media in childhood obesity. Henry J. Kaiser FamilyFoundation.

Kelly, B. et al. (2010). Television food advertising to children: A global perspective. AmericanJournal of Public Health, 100, 1730–1736.

Kelly, B., Hattersley, L., King, L. & Flood, V. (2008). Persuasive food marketing to children:Use of cartoons and competitions in Australian commercial television advertisements.Health Promotion International, 23, 337–344.

Kunkel, D., McKinley, C., & Stitt, C. (2008). Quantity and nutritional quality of foodadvertising during children’s television programming in the U.S. Paper presented at theannual conference of the International Communication Association, Montreal, Canada,May 2008.

Lapierre, M., Snyder, L. & D’alessandro, N. (2006). Children and trade characters: Recall,liking and behavioral outcomes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theInternational Communication Association, International Congress Centre, Dresden,Germany.

Lee, M., Choi, Y., Quilliam, E. T., & Cole, R. T. (2009). Playing with food: Content analysis offood advergames. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 43, 129–154.




Linn, S., & Novosat, C. L. (2008). Calories for sale. Food marketing to children in the twenty-first century. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 615,133–155.

Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. (2004). Advertising foods to children: Understanding promotionin the context of children’s daily lives. (A review of the literature prepared for theResearch Department of the Office of Communications (OFCOM)). London: Departmentof Media and Communications: London School of Economics and Political Science.

Lobstein, T., & Dibb, S. (2005). Evidence of a possible link between obesogenic foodadvertising and child overweight. Obesity Reviews, 6, 203–208.

Marshall, D., O’Donohoe, S., & Kline, S. (2007). Families, food, and pester power: Beyondthe blame game? Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 6(4), 164–181.

McDermott, L., O’Sullivan, T., Stead, M., & Hastings, G. (2006). International foodadvertising, pester power and its effects. International Journal of Advertising, 25(4), 513–539.

Mink, M., Evans, A., Moore, C. G., Calderon, K. S., & Deger, S. (2010). Nutritional imbalanceendorsed by televised food advertisements. Journal of the American Dietetic Association,110(6), 904–910.

Mueller, B., Wulfemeyer, K. T., & Castonguay, J. S. (June, 2011). Selling food and fitness tokids and parents: A content analysis of magazine advertisements. Paper presented at theInternational Conference on Research in Advertising, Berlin, Germany.

Neeley, S. M., & Schumann, D. W. (2004). Using animated spokes-characters in advertising toyoung children: Does increasing attention to advertising necessarily lead to productpreference? Journal of Advertising, 33, 7–23.

Nicklas, T. A., Tshuei Goh, E., Goodell, L. S., Acuff, D. S., Reiher, R., Buday, R., &Ottenbacher, A. (2011). Impact of commercials on food preferences of low-income,minority preschoolers. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behaviour, 43(1), 35–41.

Phillips, B. J. (1996). Defining trade characters and their role in American popular culture.Journal of Advertising, 29, 143–158.

Phillips, B. & Lee, W.-N. (2005). Interactive animation: Exploring spokes-characters on theinternet. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 27(1), 1–17.

Pires, C., & Agante, L. (2011). Encouraging children to eat more healthily: The influence ofpackaging. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 10, 161–168.

Powell, L. M., Szczypka, G., Chaloupka, F. J., & Braunschweig, C. L. (2007). Nutritionalcontent of television food advertisements seen by children and adolescents in theUnited States. Pediatrics, 120, 576–583.

Roberto, C. A., Baik, J., Harris, J. L., & Brownell, K. D. (2010). Influence of licensedcharacters on children’s taste and snack preferences. Pediatrics, 126, 88.

Robinson, T. N., Borzekowski, D. L. G., Matheson, D. N., & Kraemer, H. C. (2007). Effects offast food branding on young children’s taste preferences. Archives of Pediatrics &Adolescent Medicine, 161(8), 792–797.

Roe, B. E., Levy, A. S., & Derby, B. M. (1999). The impact of health claims on consumersearch and product evaluation outcomes: Results from FDA experimental data. Journalof Public Policy & Marketing, 18(1), 89–115.

Rozendaal, E., Buijzen, M., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2011). Children’s understanding ofadvertisers’ persuasive tactics. International Journal of Advertising, 30, 329–350.

Sandberg, H. (2011). Tiger talk and candy king: Marketing of unhealthy food and beveragesto Swedish children. Communications: The European Journal of CommunicationResearch, 36(2), 217–244.




Scammon, D. L. & Christopher, C. L. (1981). Nutrition education with children via television:A review. Journal of Advertising, 10(2), 26–36.

Seiter, E. (1993). Sold separately: Children and parents in consumer culture. New Brunswick,NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Sesame Workshop (September 2005). If Elmo eats broccoli, will kids eat it too? AtkinsFoundation grant to fund further research. Retrieved May 27, 2012 from http://archive.sesameworkshop.org/aboutus/inside_press.php?contentId=15092302.

Story, M., & French, S. (2004). Food advertising and marketing directed at children andadolescents in the US. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity,1(3).

Till, B. D. (1998). Using celebrity endorsers effectively: Lessons from associative learning.Journal of Product and Brand Management, 7, 400–409.

van Trijp, H. C. M., & van der Lans, I. A. (2007). Consumer perceptions of nutrition andhealth claims. Appetite, 48(3), 305–324.

Warren, R., LeBlanc Wicks, J., Wicks, R. H., Fosu, I., & Chung, D. (2007). Food and beverageadvertising to children on U.S. television: Did national food advertisers respond?Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 84, 795–810.

Warren, R., LeBlanc Wicks, J., Wicks, R. H., Fosu, I., & Chung, D. (2008). Food and beverageadvertising on U.S. television: A comparison of child-targeted versus general audiencecommercials. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52, 231–246.

Warwick J., McIlveen H., & Strugnell C. (1997). Food choices and the younger generation.Journal of Consumer Studies & Home Economics, 21, 141–149.



endorsing children's appetite for healthy foods: celebrity versus non-celebrity...

Documents