Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Not upheld.
Ad description
A website, three Facebook posts and a YouTube video for Chupa Chups, seen on 20 March 2018:
a. The home page of the website www.chupachups.co.uk, included icons for three videos which were hosted on a different page of the website, called “Promotions”. All three icons contained images of vloggers. It featured an image of four Chupa Chups lollipops which linked to “The Best Of” product page. It contained an image of a pizza made of sweets and the text “Enjoy a little pizza heaven with this sweet twist on your favourite dish! Get a piece”. The home page also contained links to blog posts and information about the brand.
The page called “Promotions” featured three videos. One video titled “Lick Lick” was a parody of a pop song featuring vloggers Luke Cutforth and Noodlerella. Another video featured a cover of the song “Candy” by singer-songwriter Dodie. The accompanying text stated “Chupa Chups sponsors Dodie’s debut tour! … We are proud to sponsor Dodie’s debut tour and have given her and her fans over 4000 lollipops! She made a great video in which she creatively used the lollipop in her work. Check it out below!”.
The website required visitors to enter their age on their first visit. Text stated “Are you 13 years or over?”. Two boxes underneath allowed visitors to enter ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Clicking ‘yes’ allowed the user to proceed into the website. If the user clicked ‘no’, they were then asked “Do you have permission to visit www.chupachups.co.uk?” with a box underneath which said “Yes”. Clicking “Yes” allowed the user to proceed into the website.
b. The first Facebook post from Chupa Chups, posted on 1 March 2018, included an image in the style of Mr Men books, which stated “Mr. Chup by Chupa Chups” accompanied by an illustration of a red lollipop which had arms and wore a shoe. The image also contained the Chupa Chups logo and text which said “Lollipops Sugar Free”. The caption on the post said “We’re settling in to read our favourite book today! #WorldBookDay”.
c. The second Facebook post from Chupa Chups, posted on 19 February 2018, included an image of a classroom with a blackboard, which stated “Ancient Chupa Chups History”. The teacher was a lollipop wearing a mortar board and the students were represented by lollipops in seats. The caption on the post said “Who else thinks this should be included in the school curriculum?”.
d. The third Facebook post from Chupa Chups, posted on 28 February 2018, included an embedded video titled “Instructions”. The video included an image of a Chupa Chup and text, which stated “1. Grab the top of the Chupa Chup, 2. Twist the bottom of the wrapper until loose, 3. Peel the wrapper off that delicious Chupa Chup”. The caption on the post said “’Give a kid a Chupa Chups and you feed them for a day. Teach a kid how to unwrap a Chup Chups and they suck for a lifetime’~ Old Chupa Chups Proverb”.
e. A video on Emma Blackery’s YouTube channel featuring Noodlerella published on November 4 2017. The video included them reading out facts about the Chupa Chups brand whilst doing impressions, and featured sugar free Chupa Chups.
Issue
The Children’s Food Campaign (Sustain) challenged whether:
1. ads (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) were for a product that was high in fat, salt or sugar (HFSS product ads) that were appropriately targeted; and
2. ads (a), (b) and (e) were HFSS product ads that were targeted through their content directly at pre-school or primary school children and included licensed characters or celebrities popular with children.
Response
1. & 2. Perfetti Van Melle responded, in relation to ad (a), that their website featured a range of Chupa Chups products including both their HFSS products and their non-HFSS sugar-free products. They considered that the website was not presented in a way that targeted children. Additionally, they said that the website had always contained an age gate to try to ensure that people under the age of 13 were not accessing the website. From September 2018, they increased the age gate to 16 years.
Perfetti Van Melle provided information from Google Analytics relating to the age profile and interests of visitors to their website. Google, however, did not collect data about users under the age of 18. Of the visitors who were recorded, it showed that the website was most popular with users aged 25–34 years and was visited by people most interested in shopping, travel and arts and entertainment categories. Perfetti Van Melle provided data for their global YouTube channel and UK Facebook page that showed that less than 25% of signed-in visitors to those channels were under 18.
Perfetti Van Melle said that they had run an influencer campaign, which included the videos in ads (a) and (e), to advertise their Chupa Chups Sugar Free products, which were not HFSS products. In reference to ad (e), they said that sugar-free messaging was evident throughout the dialogue between the two influencers including phrases like “Sugar free lollipops are kinder to your teeth”. They provided the overall audience demographic data for the YouTube channels of the four influencers who appeared in the videos in ads (a) and (e). The data provided showed that all four influencers were viewed most overall by viewers aged 18 to 24 and 25 to 34. The data further showed that under-18s did not comprise more than 23% of the audience of any of the influencer’s YouTube channels. Perfetti Van Melle also provided a breakdown by age of the signed-in YouTube audience of each video, which showed that for each video less than 25% of the audience was aged under 18.
Perfetti Van Melle said that the Facebook ads (ads (b), (c), and (d)) promoted the non-HFSS Sugar Free range of Chupa Chups lollipops only and each contained their Sugar Free logo. They considered that the Sugar Free logo contained equal weighting to the text stating “Chupa Chups” and the words “Sugar Free”. They said that the posts were organically posted to the Chupa Chups Facebook page, which had an audience of only 12% under-18-year olds, which they considered meant that significantly less than 25% of the Page’s audience was under 16. They said that the ads did not contain a direct response mechanic relating to any HFSS products.
Emma Blackery, who responded in relation to ad (e), said that the only Chupa Chups products featured in the video were the Chupa Chups Sugar Free products. She provided information to show that only a small percentage of her following was aged under 18.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The CAP Code required that HFSS product ads must not be directed at people under 16 years of age through the selection of media or the context in which they appeared and that no medium should be used to advertise HFSS products if more than 25% of its audience was under the age of 16. CAP Advertising Guidance titled “Identifying brand advertising that has the effect of promoting an HFSS product” laid out that the promotion of HFSS products might occur both directly (where an ad featured an HFSS product), and indirectly through the use of branding that was synonymous with a specific HFSS product; that could be through product related branding or company or corporate branding more broadly.
Ad (a), the Chupa Chups website, featured images and information relating to both HFSS and non-HFSS products in the Chupa Chups range. However, each page of the website either featured HFSS products or generic Chupa Chups branding (i.e. branding that was not explicitly linked to the Sugar Free range of products). We understood that the Chupa Chups branded product range was comprised of mainly HFSS products, and considered that therefore the generic Chupa Chups branding was synonymous with one or more HFSS products. We therefore concluded that ad (a) was an HFSS product ad.
Notwithstanding that we considered the website as a whole was an HFSS product ad, including the Promotions page which did not feature any explicit references to non-HFSS products, we also reviewed whether each specific video hosted on the Promotions page related to HFSS or non-HFSS products. The video titled “Lick Lick” featured two vloggers who made clear that they were creating a video about Chupa Chups Sugar Free lollipops. The video included images of Chupa Chups Sugar Free lollipops only and highlighted the features of the sugar-free range. The video did not contain images that we considered were associated with the Chupa Chups HFSS brands. The video titled “I Want Candy” featured a singer singing the song of the same name and using a lollipop as a prop to promote her tour, which she said was sponsored by Chupa Chups. Although the Chupa Chups logo appeared at the start of the video, the singer explained that the lollipops featured in the video were from the sugar-free range. The video titled “Doing disastrous impressions” featured two vloggers, Emma Blackery and Noodlerella, performing impressions relating to each flavour of Chupa Chups Sugar Free lollipop. The vloggers in the ad regularly said that the lollipops featured were from the Chupa Chups Sugar Free range only. The ad did include some statements that related to the Chupa Chups brand more generally, for example that “CHUPA CHUPS MAKES THE MOST PLAYFUL SWEETS IN THE WORLD AND HAS DONE SINCE 1958”. However, it also included other statements which explained how the sugar-free range could be identified including a description of the packaging, flavours and the benefits of this range. The video did not contain any images that were associated with Chupa Chup’s HFSS products. We therefore concluded that each of the three videos clearly and specifically related to non-HFSS products only.
We then reviewed whether ad (a) was directed at children. The website included an age gate, but we considered that age gates were not necessarily a deterrent to children (notwithstanding that at the time of the complaint the age gate related to under-13s rather than to under-16s). The website was brightly coloured and included engaging content such as an image of a pizza made of sweets, a link to an article about Salvador Dali and an article about a collaboration with a popular fashion underwear brand. The website included videos featuring the popular vloggers Luke Cutforth, Emma Blackery, Noodlerella and singer-songwriter Dodie. The fashion brand referenced appeared to be popular with a wide range of ages, and the viewing figures that Perfetti Van Melle provided showed that the vloggers individually and the videos featured on the website had a YouTube audience with a varied age range, but mostly people over the age of 18. Although we considered that taken altogether, the Chupa Chups website had a youthful character, we considered that it was not specifically aimed at children under 16, and that it was unlikely to be of greater appeal to under-16s than to over-16s.
Although the figures provided by Google for users of the Chupa Chups website did not include under 18s, we noted that the largest recorded user group was aged 25 to 34. We further noted that the visitors to the Chupa Chups Facebook page and UK viewers of the Chupa Chups YouTube channel were mostly aged between 18 and 34. Given the overall profile of Chupa Chups’ online audience, we considered that it was unlikely that more than 25% of visitors to the website generally were under 16. Perfetti Van Melle had also provided us with a breakdown of the viewers of each video hosted on ad (a) by age. Although the data related to the videos when accessed directly on YouTube rather than specifically through the Chupa Chups website we considered that the age profile of people viewing the videos on the Chupa Chups website was likely to be similar. For each video less than 25% of the audience were under 18 and each individual vlogger’s own channel had an audience of less than 25% under-18s. We therefore concluded that ad (a) was not directed at those under 16 and did not breach the Code.
We then reviewed whether ads (b), (c) and (d) were HFSS product ads. All three Facebook posts featured the Chupa Chups Lollipops Sugar Free logo. While that logo incorporated the generic Chupa Chups logo, we considered that because it also prominently featured the words “LOLLIPOPS SUGAR FREE” it clearly referred to the non-HFSS Chupa Chups lollipop range and was therefore the logo was not in itself synonymous with an HFSS product or products.
Ad (b) featured an image in the style of the popular children’s book series ‘Mr Men’ and was entitled “Mr Chup”. Although the image in the ad broadly resembled Chupa Chups lollipops generally, the image prominently featured the Chupa Chups Lollipops Sugar Free logo, which we considered placed the image of the lollipop specifically in the context of the non-HFSS sugar-free range. We concluded that ad (b) was not an HFSS product ad for the purposes of the Code and that the rules relating to HFSS product ads therefore did not apply to it.
Similarly, although ad (c) contained images of lollipops, we considered that the lollipops displayed appeared to be the flavours available in the Chupa Chups Sugar Free range only, and the ad prominently featured the Chupa Chups Lollipops Sugar Free logo. We concluded that ad (c) also was not an HFSS product ad for the purposes of the Code and that the rules relating to HFSS product ads therefore did not apply to it.
Ad (d) also prominently featured the Chupa Chups Lollipops Sugar Free logo. Although the ad included the words “GRAB THE TOP OF THE CHUPA CHUP” without referencing that it was sugar free, the product shown in the ad was a Chupa Chup Sugar Free lollipop and it clearly and prominently stated “SUGAR FREE” on its packaging. We concluded that ad (d) also was not an HFSS product ad for the purposes of the Code and that the rules relating to HFSS product ads therefore did not apply to it. Ads (b), (c) and (d) therefore did not breach the Code.
We considered whether ad (e) was an HFSS product ad. The YouTube video was titled “Doing disastrous impressions” and featured two vloggers, Emma Blackery and Noodlerella, performing impressions relating to each flavour of Chupa Chups Sugar Free lollipop. It was the same video that was separately hosted on the Chupa Chups website, as described above. As referenced above, taken altogether we considered that the video would be understood as relating to Chupa Chups’ Sugar Free range of lollipops only. We concluded that ad (e) was not an HFSS product ad for the purposes of the Code and that the rules relating to HFSS product ads therefore did not apply to it. The ad therefore did not breach the Code.
On this point we investigated ads (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 15.18 15.18 HFSS product advertisements must not be directed at people under 16 through the selection of media or the context in which they appear. No medium should be used to advertise HFSS products, if more than 25% of its audience is under 16 years of age. (HFSS product ad placement), but did not find them in breach.
2. Not upheld
The CAP Code required that HFSS product ads that were targeted directly at pre-school or primary school children through their content must not include licensed characters or celebrities popular with children.
The Chupa Chups website, ad (a), was an HFSS product ad. However, as referenced at point 1 above, we considered that the content of the website was not specifically aimed at children under 16, and we further considered it was not targeted through its content directly at pre-school or primary school children. It would therefore not be a breach of the Code if the ad included celebrities popular with children, but we nonetheless noted the YouTube data indicated that the vloggers featured were not popular with children. We concluded that ad (a) did not breach the Code in that regard.
As referenced in point 1, we considered that ads (b) and (e) were not HFSS product ads; CAP Code rule
15.15
15.15
Licensed characters and celebrities popular with children must be used with a due sense of responsibility. HFSS product advertisements that are targeted directly at pre-school or primary school children through their content must not include licensed characters or celebrities popular with children. For the avoidance of doubt, that prohibition applies to food or drink advertisements only.
The prohibition does not apply to advertiser-created equity brand characters (puppets, persons or characters), which may be used by advertisers to sell the products they were designed to sell.
Licensed characters and celebrities popular with children may present factual and relevant generic statements about nutrition, safety, education or similar.
therefore did not apply to them. Ads (b) and (e) did not breach the Code in that regard.
On this point we investigated ads (a), (b) and (e) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rule
15.15
15.15
Licensed characters and celebrities popular with children must be used with a due sense of responsibility. HFSS product advertisements that are targeted directly at pre-school or primary school children through their content must not include licensed characters or celebrities popular with children. For the avoidance of doubt, that prohibition applies to food or drink advertisements only.
The prohibition does not apply to advertiser-created equity brand characters (puppets, persons or characters), which may be used by advertisers to sell the products they were designed to sell.
Licensed characters and celebrities popular with children may present factual and relevant generic statements about nutrition, safety, education or similar.
(HFSS product ad placement), but did not find them in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
