Kellogg’s scores ‘hat trick of shame’ in kids marketing report

Live score:

Parent’s Jury Fame & Shame Awards 3 – 0 Kellogg Australia & New Zealand

Its rare to see a company ask questions in a response video which their spokesperson avoids answering. I guess he was too used to not answering journo’s questions that he just went into default mode.

Dear Parents Jury,
How about spending less time judging ridiculous awards, and more time being a parent ie: the person who is ultimately responsible for what their overweight and obese child puts in their mouth.

Back in 1981 my poor old Mum gave us Nutrigrain before we set off for St Brendan’s in Bankstown in the hope that we would grow up to be tall healthy muscle-bound blond sunbronzed Anzac gods playing for the Australian test team..

Thirty years on I am still short and fat with an olive complexion and dark hair but with added diabetes. And I still hate cricket

Is there someone I can sue?

phillip morrris workers also have families. whats the point. is australian corporate pr spin really that bad. Alberto sue the Australian cricket board. they wouldnt let me play for austrlaia either and I am buffed and bronzed (and ate only toast).

MCDonalds must be chuffed that someone else is under the spot light. Kentucky Fried Chicken must be chuffed everyone now calls them KFC and all those sugar Filled muesli makers must be Chuffed government are against the new sugar indicators on packaging.

‘What does Kelloggs think of the Parents’ Jury Awards?’

Enough for them to pre-record a video in anticipation of their ‘success’…

What’s the ‘supermarket overlay’ in the last minute of the VNR all about? Am I missing something?

Can’t believe it – i love the Nutrigrain ads and give Nutrigrain to my 2 boys all of the time thinking it will help them with their sport and give them energy. Oh well i’ll move them on to sugared donuts instead. They always say the best person to sell to is a sales person….

@blc1981 I think the VNR was intended as raw content/vision to be used and edited by media outlets to illustrate the story. I’m pretty sure they didn’t expect it to be shown in its entirety. Much like you wouldn’t expect a press release to be printed verbatim.

blc – the overlay is included to allow busy, cash-strapped news rooms to include footage of the clients product in their stories without having to send an expensive crew out to a supermarket. To be fair on Kelloggs, they also included footage of competitor’s products in this instance…

Please tell me that was a skit from The Chaser?? And who were the Kelloggs paid dummies who ‘walked the walk’.

This so called parents jury is an absolute joke. I bet they are the same parents who have the audacity to judge other parents without looking at themselves. Remember no one is putting a gun to your head to force you to buy certain products/brand. This reminds me of an article in todays daily telegraph online about mums who are complaining how they have to pay for a babycino for their children – http://www.dailytelegraph.com......6189200317

At the end of the day, it’s the parent’s responsibility to provide healthy food for their children. Who cares what the ads say! Just read the side of the box and make the right choice. Simple.

“With one in four Australian children considered to be overweight or obese, it’s no longer enough to simply tell parents to say no. We as a society have to take a stand and tell the industry its codes are not good enough.”

Rollox!! It’s about educating children and I’d suggest you watch this in its entirety – http://vimeo.com/9407655. Particularly note that ONE HOUR is all it takes to educate kids about what’s good and what’s not.

So, yes, it IS the parent’s fault and NOT the producers of these products, Corrina Langelaan. Stop being such a nanny state supporter and get a life!!!!

So if parents have the choice like the Kelloggs marketing teams are saying here why advertise to the kids?

If it’s a case of becoming a “nanny state” then the food companies have brought this on themselves by giving ambiguous information that confuses the public.

Take Coco pops for example, sugars are 12% of DI or dietary intake so you automatically think that this is ok BUT Coco pops contains 36gms of sugar per 100grams or 36.5%, is this a fair representation of the amount of sugar of what would be considered a low level of sugar, 10% DI looks a lot lower than 36.5% sugar. Once again a clever way of manipulating the nutritional information to give a skewed impression of the product.

In a statement from Kelloggs “We now focus much of our efforts on promoting healthier cereals, such as Sultana Bran”, so Sultana brand may give a 1/3 of their daily fibre needs but what about the 28.4% of sugar? Is this a healthier breakfast cereal with 28.4% of sugar?

So I ask is this responsible advertising?

Weaning kids off sugar is tough for any pestered parent. Convenience foods just happen to be bloody convenient as well as loaded with sugar. The ads also promote an active lifestyle for the kids which means you need to have convenience foods to have the time to be active.

I wonder if the comments here directed against parents being the gatekeepers are from actual parents.

Busy Dad – I am a parent and i agree with the statements. My son only gets what i give him. The buck stops with me. Nothing to do with Advertising!