Parents' reactions to unhealthy food v. pro-health sponsorship options for children's sport: an experimental study

Abstract

Objective: To explore parents' responses to sponsorship of children's sport by unhealthy food brands and two alternative pro-health sponsorship options.

Design: Between-subjects online experiment with four sponsorship conditions: (i) non-food branding (control); (ii) unhealthy food branding; (iii) healthier food branding; (iv) public health nutrition campaign branding. Participants were shown a short video and a promotional flyer for a fictional junior sports programme, with sponsor content representing their assigned brand. Afterwards, participants were asked a series of questions assessing their brand awareness, brand attitudes and preference for food sponsor branded products.

Setting: Australia.

Participants: Australian parents (n 1331) of children aged 6-9 years.

Results: Compared with the control condition, unhealthy food sponsorship promoted increased awareness, branded product preferences and favourable attitudes towards unhealthy food sponsor brands. Healthier food sponsorship promoted similar effects for healthier food sponsor brands, except there was no significant increase in positive attitudes towards these brands. Sponsorship by public health nutrition campaigns promoted more negative attitudes towards unhealthy food sponsor brands and increased preference for healthier food sponsor branded products. Overall, healthier food sponsors and public health campaign sponsors were perceived to have better programme-sponsor fit and to be more appropriate sponsors of children's sport than unhealthy food sponsors.

Conclusions: Restrictions on unhealthy food sponsorship of children's sport are needed to prevent unhealthy food brands from exploiting junior sport sponsorship to enhance their appeal. Sponsorship of children's sport by healthier food brands or public health nutrition campaigns could help promote healthier food choices among parents.

Keywords: Children’s sport; Experiment; Obesity; Parents; Public health nutrition; Sport sponsorship.

Fig. 1

Example of video (a) start- and (b) end-frame for the public health nutrition campaign branding condition

Fig. 2

Example of branded promotional flyer for the public health nutrition campaign branding condition

Fig. 3

Example of branded product preferences question for breakfast cereals (left to right: unhealthy branded product A; unhealthy branded product B; healthier branded product A; healthier branded product B)

Fig. 4

Predicted proportion with awareness of sponsor brands by sponsorship condition (, non-food branding; , unhealthy food branding; , healthier food branding; , public health nutrition campaign branding) among Australian parents of children aged 6–9 years (n 1331). 95 % confidence intervals are represented by vertical bars. Logistic regression analyses included product category and brand set as covariates. ***P < 0·001; †reference category for logistic regression analyses

Fig. 5

Predicted proportion who chose sponsor products by sponsorship condition (, non-food branding; , unhealthy food branding; , healthier food branding; , public health nutrition campaign branding) among Australian parents of children aged 6–9 years (n 1331). 95 % confidence intervals are represented by vertical bars. Logistic regression analyses included product category and brand set as covariates. *P < 0·05, **P < 0·01; †reference category for logistic regression analyses

Fig. 6

Predicted mean attitudinal rating of sponsor brands by sponsorship condition (, non-food branding; , unhealthy food branding; , healthier food branding; , public health nutrition campaign branding) among Australian parents of children aged 6–9 years (n 1331). 95 % confidence intervals are represented by vertical bars. Linear regression analyses included product category and brand set as covariates. *P < 0·05, **P < 0·01; †reference category for linear regression analyses

Fig. 7

Predicted mean image-based similarity scores for pairings of the ‘Go Team’ programme with sponsor brands by sponsorship condition (, non-food branding; , unhealthy food branding; , healthier food branding; , public health nutrition campaign branding) among Australian parents of children aged 6–9 years (n 1331). 95 % confidence intervals are represented by vertical bars. Linear regression analyses included product category and brand set as covariates. *P < 0·05, ***P < 0·001; †reference category for linear regression analyses

Fig. 8

Predicted mean programme–sponsor fit perceptions of sponsor brands by sponsorship condition (, non-food branding; , unhealthy food branding; , healthier food branding; , public health nutrition campaign branding) among Australian parents of children aged 6–9 years (n 1331). 95 % confidence intervals are represented by vertical bars. Linear regression analyses included product category and brand set as covariates. ***P < 0·001; †reference category for linear regression analyses