Young Consumer Brand

European Journal of Marketing
Young consumer-brand relationship building potential using digital marketing

Nicolla Confos, Teresa Davis,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Nicolla Confos, Teresa Davis, (2016) "Young consumer-brand relationship building potential
using digital marketing", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 50 Issue: 11, pp.1993-2017, https://
Downloaded by LAHORE SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS At 21:16 25 September 2017 (PT)
doi.org/10.1108/EJM-07-2015-0430
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-07-2015-0430
Downloaded on: 25 September 2017, At: 21:16 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 85 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 5601 times since 2016*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2014),"Business to business digital content marketing: marketers’ perceptions of best
practice", Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 8 Iss 4 pp. 269-293 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-02-2014-0013">https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-02-2014-0013</a>
(2016),"Exploring the integration of social media within integrated marketing communication
frameworks: Perspectives of services marketers", Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol.
34 Iss 1 pp. 19-40 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-09-2014-0169">https://doi.org/10.1108/
MIP-09-2014-0169</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:505799 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm
Young consumer-brand Relationship

building
relationship building potential potential
using digital marketing
Nicolla Confos and Teresa Davis 1993
Discipline of Marketing, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
Received 14 July 2015
Revised 13 October 2015
24 February 2016
Abstract 3 June 2016
22 June 2016
Purpose – This paper aims to examine branding strategies directed at child consumers, used by six 7 July 2016
high fat, sugar and salt food brands across three different digital marketing platforms. It identifies Accepted 19 July 2016
brand relationship building potential in this digital context.
Design/methodology/approach – This study analyses the contents of branded mobile phone
applications, branded websites (including advergames) and branded Facebook sites to understand the
nature of young consumer– brand relationship strategies that marketers are developing in this digital
media marketing environment.
Findings – The use of sophisticated integrated branding strategies in immersive online media creates
the potential for marketers to build relationships between young consumers and brands at an
interactive, direct and social level not seen in traditional media. Categories of relationships and brand
tactics are identified as outcomes of this analysis and linked to brand relationship building potential.
Research limitations/implications – The results suggest that branded communication strategies
that food companies use in the online environment are creating conditions that appeal to young
consumers, fostering new ways to build brand relationships. As this is a dynamic medium in a fluid
state of change, this exploratory study identifies and categorises the marketing strategy, but not the
young consumers’ response to such branding strategies (a limitation).
Originality/value – This study details the potential for child– brand relationship building in the
context of online branding environments. It identifies the potential for longer-term effects of embedded
advertising directly to young consumers, within and across three digital media platforms.
Keywords Brand placements, Branded mobile app, Child– brand relationships,
Digital brand placements, Under-the-radar advertising, Young consumers
Paper type Research paper
Introduction and background

The Advertising Education Forum (2012, p. 66) concluded in its extensive literature
review of digital marketing and advertising to children that “digital media is becoming
an increasingly integrated part of children’s lives globally and digital marketing in one
form or another will be part of their online experience”. Leibowitz et al. (2012) show that
in the US context, the increase in mobile technology access and its use by children in the
5-15 age range is correspondingly matched by the significant decline in TV advertising
to children [especially of high fat, sugar and salt (HFSS) foods] and a corresponding 50
per cent increase in mobile and online advertising to children in the same post-2009
period. In the UK, the figures on tablet and smart phone use by children have increased European Journal of Marketing
dramatically according to Ofcom (2014) survey results. In Australia, 45 per cent of Vol. 50 No. 11, 2016
pp. 1993-2017
8-11-year-olds use social networking sites (ACMA, 2013). The nature of this medium © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0309-0566
fosters a new type of digital marketing that is complex beyond anything policymakers DOI 10.1108/EJM-07-2015-0430
EJM have yet had to regulate. Evidence suggests that consumers interpret a brand message
50,11 from the Web more like information obtained from their own direct experience with a
product, than as an advertisement (Moore, 2004). In addition, the internet demands
focused attention and provokes young consumers to seek out desired content as opposed
to being more passive observers associated with traditional media (Moore and Rideout,
2007). Therefore, this becomes an important context in which to investigate the nature of
1994 the relationship between young consumers and marketers.
This paper will therefore first examine this digital marketing context, with a
particular focus on the marketing of unhealthy food to young consumers. It will build on
the general idea that Montgomery et al. (2012, p. 660) hint at when they say:
interactive media are ushering in an entirely new set of relationships, breaking down
traditional barriers between content and commerce and creating unprecedented intimacies
between children and marketers.
It will develop more fully the specific brand relationship building that some food
companies engage in with children using digital platforms. Further, we examine how
while these digital marketing platforms are here to stay, some regulation may help
protect young consumers from these “intimacies”. Regulation of online marketing is a
complex issue, but as Montgomery et al. (2012) point out, evolving technology makes it
imperative for policy and regulatory practices to keep in step. Nairn and Hang (2012)
point out that apart from the self-regulatory guidelines of the Children’s Advertising
Review Unit (US self-regulatory body), very limited content rating of online and branded
app games exists, and to label them as advertisements is not legally required. In the
self-regulatory jurisdictions of Australia, the requirement is even less stringent.
Montgomery et al. (2012) refer to this as the “new threat of digital marketing” and
suggest that because of the multiple platforms and complex way digital marketing is
used with young consumer segments, a holistic and comprehensive policy of regulation
and protection needs to be developed together with self-regulation. This they suggest
needs to be developed with government, public health, advocacy and industry
stakeholders.
This study and its findings will help inform such policy and regulation. Some policy
directions are suggested as being suited to the overall strategies uncovered by this
study. These suggestions, we hope, will help guide the evolving policy moves by several
countries trying to manage and regulate the privacy and protection issues around
digital marketing approaches by HFSS food companies.
The findings are consolidated and grounded in Fournier’s (1998) and Ji’s (2008)
understandings of how young consumers form relationships with brands as objects.
These studies, written before the existence of mobile platforms such as the ones
examined here, identified the potential for long-term relationships between children and
their favourite brands. Given this new interactivity and bi-directional communication, it
is suggested that this is now a potent and much more real relationship.
The digital media and marketing ecosystem

Montgomery and Chester (2009) described a Media and Marketing Ecosystem (MME)
that food marketing has built online using new and interactive media platforms. This
MME is a complete media environment that uses new and innovative strategies to target
children in very purposive ways. New digital technologies and newer digital platforms
blur traditional lines between content and commercial messages. They also create a Relationship
bi-directional means of direct communication between the brand communicator and the building
young consumer. Montgomery and Chester (2009, p. 523) describe this as by:
potential
[…] seamlessly weaving together content, advertising, marketing, and direct transactions,
online media can provide unprecedented access to individual consumer data along with a
variety of direct-response and brand-marketing opportunities.
This continuous, engaging, interactive and immersive nature of online content forms an 1995
ideal environment within which commercial messages can be interwoven and
camouflaged. Montgomery and Chester (2009) unpack the concept of this ecosystem and
identify six distinct characteristics of this online world that make it particularly
attractive to adolescents and teens: ubiquitous connectivity, personalisation,

peer-to-peer networking, engagement, immersion and content creation. These
characteristics make online media different in key ways from more traditional media
such as television content/commercials and, they argue, are key enablers of new digital
marketing techniques for those who market to young consumers.
Effects of digital marketing on young consumers

The question of whether such targeting of young consumers online by marketers is
effective has been addressed by a small but growing body of research. Cheyne et al.
(2013) point out that websites with greater interactivity, multimedia content and
personalised interaction create greater traffic and keep children on the sites for longer.
The “sticky” (Montgomery and Chester, 2011) nature of such bi-directional interaction
makes marketing using this medium far more effective than traditional forms of
advertising (Hang and Auty, 2011).
The current study’s analysis of integrated branded communication strategies shows
that food marketers capitalise on several complex strategies that are effective because
they operate under-the-radar. This term simultaneously denotes the platforms in which
these strategies are delivered, the fact that parents are unaware of the strategies and the
fact that the advertising is delivered as entertainment (Kelly et al., 2015). It could be
argued that new digital media have changed how young consumers are socialised and
develop as consumers (John, 1999). The effects of such online advertising on young
consumers have been established by self-report and using experimental methods
(Cheyne et al., 2013; Hudson and Elliott, 2013). In addition, neuroscientists have taken a
deeper interest in the effects of advertising on children’s brains. There appears to be
increasing evidence of a direct connection between exposure to brand advertising and
cognitive processing (Dobson, 2012), the formation of positive attitudes towards brands
to which one is exposed, as well as consumption of foods. Therefore, because online
media and new digital platforms have become a key socialisation agent, children are
affected by online and digital branded communication strategies developed by food
companies; this is due to both the nature of these media as well as the amount of time and
exposure to this under-the-radar advertising. As Owen et al. (2013) point out, young
consumers process advertisements presented in non-traditional formats (such as
in-game placements) differently and have less understanding of their persuasive intent
than when processing traditional and clearly delineated commercials.
Young consumers exposed to advergames and other website interactions with a
brand show a marked preference for branded sweets compared to those in a
EJM non-branded advergame (Dias and Agante, 2011; Redondo, 2012). Additionally, Kim
50,11 et al. (2016) co-relate the advertising expenditure of some HFSS food brands such as
M&Ms and McDonalds to high “brand affinity scores” (brand likeability). However, the
effects have been shown to go beyond positive brand attitudes. Advergaming of HFSS
foods is related to higher consumption of these foods (as well as more positive brand
attitudes) (Harris et al., 2012; An and Kang, 2014). Hernandez and Chapa (2010) showed
1996 in a “play and then choose” experiment that 66 per cent of the young consumers picked
the advertised biscuit brand when given an actual choice of snack. Thus, it would seem
in cross-sectional experimental studies that playing a branded advergame creates
enough exposure to the brand to affect brand awareness, attitudes and actual choice and
consumption of unhealthy branded foods.

According to Ferrazzi and Benezra (2001), the purpose of advergames is brand
immersion, which is designed to be playful and involving (Moore and Rideout, 2007).
Creating advertising as entertainment effectively reduces young consumers’ scepticism
about the persuasive intent, making them more vulnerable to exposure to the branded
message (Moore and Rideout, 2007). Kelly et al. (2008) describe how brand visuals, links
to brand-related websites and premium offers are used to repeatedly advertise and
reinforce positive brand associations on multiple digital platforms.
Similarly, we see the effects of marketing using social media (Harris et al., 2013)
working to persuade young consumers not only to consume more HFSS foods but also
to recommend the foods to their friends and family. Young consumers interact with
these brands across several digital platforms and connect with each other. Freeman et al.
(2014) show how Facebook pages are one means by which multiple marketing
techniques are deployed by energy dense, nutrient poor food brands. Using content
analyses of 27 Facebook pages, they identified direct purchase, game-embedded pages
and offers of a free app as incentives that further persuade users to prefer the advertised
brand. While that was a comprehensive study, the authors did not analyse multiple
online platforms in terms of the overall branding strategy and did not carry out a
detailed analysis of the advergames and branded apps themselves to examine exactly
how these tactics combine to form a longer or higher-level engagement with young
consumers.
Effects of the digital media and marketing environment and its implications for young
consumer– brand relationships
These studies discussed above not only provide evidence for the immediate effects of
digital marketing of branded unhealthy foods on young consumers but also suggest
longer-term engagement by the brand, beyond brand awareness and the immediate
influence of purchase and consumption of the product. We examine how digital
marketing fosters conditions for an on-going “brand relationship” with young
consumers. The medium helps bring them into contact with these brands, helps
reinforce brand associations and continuously communicates and interacts with young
consumers helping create a relationship between the brand and the young consumer.
In this paper, we examine how this Digital Media and Marketing Environment
(DMME), being continuous, engaging, interactive and immersive, creates a web of social
relations with young consumers, developing conditions for the growth and maintenance
of long-term “brand relationships”. We examine how closely the characteristics of the
MME described by Montgomery and Chester (2009) overlap with conditions that have
been shown to best nurture long-term brand relationships (Fournier, 1998; Ji, 2008). Relationship
Hence, this paper links the characteristics of the MME described by Montgomery and building
Chester (2009) to the conditions that foster brand relationships as described by Ji (2008).
This helps to illustrate how the DMME could possibly create longer-term effects beyond
potential
brand awareness and preference or even food brand consumption choice.
Food marketers have created 360-degree campaigns that take advantage of
adolescents’ multitasking and constant connectivity to technology, resulting in food 1997
brands having a ubiquitous presence in the social lives of youth (Montgomery and
Chester, 2008; Montgomery et al., 2011). For example, advertisers can create a Facebook
page that invites users to add an application (software app) to their account. Known as
a social ad, this system penetrates relationships among individuals that are tracked
online while also serving as a means of advertising and tracking users’ responses to ads
in what has been described as an “infrastructure” for marketers (Montgomery and
Chester, 2008). Furthermore, by tracking relationships, companies can seek out the most
influential young person within a social group and then enlist that “Alpher” to transmit
the brand message, essentially creating a digital chain of covert product endorsement
spread to millions of recipients (Montgomery and Chester, 2008; Montgomery et al.,
2011). (For an example of how this works, please see www.kairaymedia.com/services/
social-ads/).
Mobile-branded apps are yet another platform that reinforces and helps develop the
interaction and exposure of a brand vis-à-vis the young consumer. Games that feature
the brand as the main feature are usually available for free download from the brand’s
website or embedded on the brand’s Facebook page. They are usually simple and
easy-to-play games, featuring the brand in several “in-game” embedded contexts. They
expose the player to multiple images of the brand as an integral part of the game. By
themselves, these branded apps do not seem to serve much of a branding purpose.
However, when combined with a Facebook page, a website that contains advergames
that can be downloaded as a mobile app to the consumer’s mobile device, a more
integrated branding strategy becomes apparent. Little research on this is available in
the mobile app context, although this is only one among multiple online platforms that
helps build the surround-sound effect of integrated marketing.
Heath et al. (2008)[1] illustrate experimentally how emotive content in advertising
“metacommunicates” and builds the strength of the consumer– brand relationship.
Under low-attention conditions, consumers focus on peripheral and emotional cues
rather than processing factual aspects of the communication. This is an important
element in understanding how effective the DMME is in creating fleeting, low-attention,
multiple-brand connections and points of engagement over multiple digital platforms.
These emotional connections serve to build strong ongoing brand relationships.
Boyland and Whalen (2015) explain how such an integrated digital branding strategy
deploys brand impressions and offers emotional engagement opportunities to the young
consumer across multiple digital platforms. Huang and Mitchell (2014) clearly show
how anything that enhances the imagining of brand relationships enhances the strength
of that relationship. Clearly, social media and direct interactivity with a brand online
make it much easier to imagine the brand as an entity with which one can form a
relationship. Huang and Mitchell (2014, p. 44) suggest that brand managers should
“stimulate brand imagination in their brand messages”. This stimulation of brand
imagination is enhanced in the online interaction in which young consumers can engage.
EJM Fournier (1998), in identifying the “typology” of consumer– brand relationships,
50,11 shows how several food brands (e.g. Nestlé’s Quik and Friendly’s ice cream and Coke
Classic were described by respondents as brands they had formed relationships with in
childhood) fall into the “best friendships” and “childhood friendships” categories. Jones
et al. (2010) show that young consumers aged between 6 and 13 years are influenced and
respond well to these “relationship-building communications” by food brands in
1998 magazines. They emphasise that older children in the sample seemed to be susceptible
“to more sophisticated marketing strategies” (p. 2116).
Ji (2008), in unpacking the way young consumers form relationships with brands,
describes a model with the young consumer as a potential relationship partner. She
points out that the child needs to have enough motivation, opportunity and ability
(MOA) to develop any brand relationship. In terms of motivation, Ji suggests that the
young consumer needs to want to form a relationship with the brand because it helps
them develop self-identity or an “intimate” relationship with others or even the brand (if
it seems sufficiently “person like”). The opportunity to form such relationships is based
on the possibility to interact with the brand, and the frequency thereof. Finally, the
ability to form a relationship is grounded in the young consumer’s cognitive and
affective capacity to make connections and interact as a partner. While Ji’s (2008) work
was performed in the context of more traditional forms of brand interaction, it applies
even more particularly to young consumer– brand interactions online.
To summarise, an environment that fosters interactivity, interconnectedness, intimacy
and brand partner potential (MOA) described by Fournier (1998) and Ji (2008), coupled with
the emotion- and peripheral cue-driven processing that it encourages, and integrated
seamlessly across multiple platforms, create perfect conditions for young consumers to
develop brand relationships with food brands through metacommunication (Heath et al.,
2008).
In this paper, in analysing the content of digital marketing that targets young
consumers, we highlight how the DMME metacommunicates in the context of food
brands and fosters conditions that motivate young consumers to engage with these food
brands in a relationship. The DMME provides opportunities to connect with the brands
and even to directly purchase or consume them, and ensures that consumers (in
particular young consumers) are able to emotionally connect with the brand.
Rationale
This study attempts to systematically identify the key strategies of engagement used by
HFSS food companies in marketing to young consumers online. It examines how this is
done across multiple media platforms through the creation of multiple opportunities for
a young consumer who is online to be exposed to and directly interact with the brand.
This occurs in a medium that is poorly regulated and has an international reach, with the
potential to collect enormous amounts of personal information from children directly.
This study also examines how these HFSS food brands connect with consumers
in a personalised and humanised manner by creating direct online links that can be
described as relationships. Although much has been written about how brands
establish person– object relationships (Fournier, 1998; Ji, 2008), not as much work
has examined the potential for brand relationship building in this new digital and
interactive environment where new dialogues and forms of consumer socialisation
operate. Two-way interactions and dynamic real-time responses from
anthropomorphised brands take these relationships to a higher level – almost a Relationship
person-to-person level. This creates young consumer– brand engagement that is building
potentially more powerful than any traditional form of advertising.
These newer forms of advertising do not raise cognitive defences, unlike clearly
potential
labelled advertising content in traditional media such as television. Unique to this
research, this study closely analyses the branded app as a particularly cheap, effective
and simple means by which embedded brand placement takes place, adding potency to 1999
the existing Facebook and website advergaming online marketing ecosystem, which
brands use to connect directly with young consumers.
This leads to a series of questions that form the basis of this study’s objectives. This
research establishes the groundwork for examining product placement and branded
communications to children in digital media and the conditions for fostering brand
relationship that this creates.
Research questions
RQ1. What branding strategies do food manufacturers use in digital media to
communicate with young consumers?
RQ2. What brand relationship building potential do food brands have with young
consumers in this digital context?
Methodology and analysis

A content analysis was conducted on six food brands across three digital media
platforms (advergames on websites, Facebook pages and branded mobile games) to
identify the branded communication strategies being used by these major food
corporations. Several digital platforms were included in the analysis to obtain a holistic
understanding of food companies’ integrated marketing efforts and the degree to which
these extend across different media channels and platforms. The content was
systematically coded, identified and categorised into distinct branding strategies that
were matched to the MOA potential created for young consumers to engage with the
brand.
This study differs from existing research in its particular focus on covert branding
placement in new digital media, specifically advergames, social networking sites and
mobile applications. In addition, this work aims to identify the seamless and integrated
strategies used by food marketers to connect with young consumers across multiple
media channels. Overall, it examines the under-the-radar strategies to which children
are exposed in largely unregulated digital media and attempts to determine whether a
single branding strategy can be identified across several platforms. Finally, it identifies
why branding strategies used in this online space provide such potential for young
consumers to form deeper and more connected relationships with these brands.
The data for this study were collected from food manufacturer websites,
corresponding social networking sites and mobile applications. The companies and
brands were chosen to reflect a sample of food advertisers for whom children are a
primary target audience. The same criteria were used in Cheyne et al. (2013). Sites or
games with material directed predominantly at parents or adults (i.e. filled with
nutrition advice and recipes or speaking about food in technical terms) were excluded.
Where the main website had several “subsites” (i.e. those with the same main URL stem),
EJM we examined all subsites. Moreover, this study focused particularly on advertisements
50,11 that promoted unhealthy foods (i.e. HFSS foods) according to the Australian Guide to
Healthy Eating (Australian Department of Health, NHMRC, 2015). These included, but
were not limited to, chocolate and confectionary, cakes, biscuits, snack foods, fast foods,
spreads, soft drinks and fruit juice. Junk food companies were the sample of choice in
this analysis, as 17 per cent of media budgets are spent in confectionery (IAB Australia,
2000 2014). Furthermore, this category appeals the most to young consumers and hence is a
cause for concern in the current debates around obesity and young consumers.
Drawing from research conducted by IAB Australia (2014), this study sampled food
manufacturers listed among the top ten food advertisers in their categories. In addition,
based on Jones and Reid (2010), the following factors were taken into consideration when
selecting food manufacturers: amount spent on advertising, frequency of advertising in
other media and top-selling grocery brands. Subsequently, this top ten list was
narrowed down to six food companies with a product mix made up of mostly unhealthy
foods targeted at young consumers over all three digital media platforms:
(1) Coca-Cola South Pacific Pty Ltd.;
(2) McDonald’s Corporation;
(3) Cadbury Australia (Kraft Foods Australia Ltd.);
(4) Chupa Chups;
(5) Doritos Australia (The Smith’s Snackfood Company Ltd.); and
(6) Pringles (Kellogg Company).
The media were analysed using coding categories adapted from previous research on
internet marketing (Kelly and Chapman, 2007; Lee et al., 2009; Nelson, 2002). A coding
frame was developed deductively before and inductively during data analysis (Bourque,
2004). To establish consistency and reliability, two independent coders double-coded a
sample set of two advergames, four mobile apps and two websites. The coding
framework (available on request) initially began with tactics identified from previous
research (Kelly et al., 2007), such as brand mentions, sales promotions and educational
material. However, taking into consideration the complex nature of these new media,
this study adapted categories to reflect the advanced features of these digital platforms.
For instance, downloadable items extended beyond screensavers to include
downloadable mobile applications and YouTube videos (Table I).
The following brand integration strategies adapted from previous studies on brand
placement (Lee et al., 2009; Nelson, 2002) were used to identify levels of brand integration
(the full list is available on request). A full brand mention was the full visual logo or
symbol and any other visuals of the brand product with the logo visible on its
packaging, as would be seen in store. An associative brand mention was any reference to
brand character, a brand jingle or tagline or elements related to the brand name. It also
referred to a visual of the product without any branding logo (e.g. a lollipop instead of a
Chupa Chup) as well as the brand name written in word text as opposed to its trademark,
or script. Finally, an implied brand mention was sounds and onomatopoeia of words that
characterised the brand (e.g. “pfstt” to describe the sound of a Coca-Cola bottle opening).
It also denoted the brand represented as it would not normally be seen (e.g. a fountain in
the shape of golden arches).
Findings Relationship
The results demonstrate that online branded advertising is growing in popularity and is building
largely under-the-radar in this media space. The results of the content analysis suggest
that the types of branded advertising strategies that food marketers use to target young
potential
audiences via digital platforms have changed. These tactics are identified and
categorised according to the perceived goals of the marketer.
2001
Facebook
A content analysis of Facebook pages was conducted over a six-month period. Brand
mentions were quantified on a monthly basis as monthly active users (the standard used in
estimating traffic flow to websites), whereas strategies were examined more holistically and
reported over the whole six-month period. Associative brand mentions were observed twice
as often as full brand mentions. Implied mentions were sporadic, and some brands (i.e.
McDonald’s, Chupa Chups and Doritos) did not have any implied mentions at all.
Tactics used on Facebook

Food companies used a number of tactics to persuade visitors to engage with the brand
on Facebook and then extend this experience either on digital platforms or offline.
Encouraging purchase behaviour. The most popular tactic used was sales promotion,
which accounted for 44 per cent of strategies used. Sales promotions ranged from
product advertisements to competitions, contests, premiums, samples, coupons, rebates
and sweepstakes. Each Facebook post about a competition had a link to the corporate
website for visitors to enter. Competitions encouraged the young consumer to act on
purchase behaviour because to enter a competition and be eligible for prizes, the young
consumer had to purchase a product to obtain unique codes.
Extending the online experience. Linking to a brand-related site, which accounted for
22 per cent of strategies used, was the next most popular tactic to encourage visitors to
stay online. A brand-related site could be the brand’s main website, a secondary website
that was developed by the brand, or the brand’s Facebook page. The third most popular
tactic identified was brand partnerships or alliances with other brands, which accounted
for 15 per cent of tactics used. The most popular brand alliances had to do with sports.
However, brand alliances were also identified with blockbuster movies and television
programs, such as Ice Age 4 (McDonalds) and The Voice (Chupa Chups). A clever
Brand Full brand mention Associative brand mention Implied brand mention
McDonalds 2 47 –
Chupa Chup 55 36 –
Cadbury-Joyville 14 36 5
Coca-Cola – My
Coke 22 20 5
Doritos 20 18 –
Cadbury – main site 6 12 3
Coca-Cola main site 5 12 – Table I.
Coca-Cola Brand mentions for
unleashed 6 9 1 each corporate
Pringles 1 4 8 website
EJM technique Pringles used to engage with their audience was to ask fans which movie they
50,11 would like to see Pringles cans acting out. The fans posted movies they liked, and the
brand responded by posting a photo of the Pringles product arranged in a scene from the
most liked movie. This tactic served Pringles with free market research, as they were
made aware of brand alliances popular with their target audience.
Another approach used on Facebook to encourage an extended online brand
2002 experience was viral marketing, in which visitors were encouraged to tag their friends
and share the experience. For example, Cadbury posted a large photo of the different
flavoured Cadbury blocks that said, “Tag your friends in the picture to let them know
which Cadbury Dairy Milk chocolate bar you wish you were sharing with them right
now”. By inviting brand users to connect with others online, the brand enabled a social
interaction, facilitating a brand community. This tactic optimised the features of
Facebook to build engagement with consumers and promote the brand. It helped the
visitor network with other consumers online and therefore induced brand advocacy.
Other tactics on Facebook included downloadable items and opportunities to
customise the brand. Downloadable items most often included clips (of television
advertisements, telecasts or webisodes) and links to download a mobile application.
Pringles gave Facebook consumers the opportunity to personalise the brand by
providing them with a cut-out moustache to take a photo of themselves posing as the
brand character Mr. Pringle and post it to the Pringles wall. This strategy raises
concerns regarding privacy issues. In other instances, the Pringles Facebook page
posted pictures of Mr Pringle at various locations around Australia and encouraged
people to take pictures of themselves holding Pringles cans in the same location and
share this picture on the Pringles Facebook page, to win two cases of free Pringles.
Facebook allows companies to create branded communities very easily. With regular
updates, adolescents are continuously drawn into this media space and encouraged to
share information with the brand. It is important to note that when a Facebook user likes
a food company’s fan page, he or she automatically receives regular updates about that
brand on his or her own page. This means that the consumer does not actually have to
visit the brand’s page to receive branded visuals and information; this automatically
appears on the consumer’s own personal newsfeed when he or she signs in. Thus, the
company creates unsolicited brand encounters for the consumer.
Advergames
The advergames selected for this study had to be accessible from either the corporate
website or the Facebook page. It was more common for advergames to be delivered
through the Facebook media platform as a Facebook app.
Advergames via Facebook. To use the Facebook app, visitors are often obliged to like
the page and/or like the application game itself. By clicking on the app, visitors consent
to networking with the developer, in this case interacting with the brand. Specifically,
the app receives basic information about the consumer, and in exchange the customer
sees all of the latest posts published by the app (brand). These appear in the consumers’
personal newsfeed, visible every time they open their Facebook page. Thus, the
Facebook app takes advantage of all Facebook features and operates just like a friend on
Facebook would, integrating with the newsfeed and notifications functions.
Brand mentions. For all advergames, brand mentions were quantified based on those
identified in the playtime for the first level of the game. The brand mentions are reported Relationship
in Table II, calculated to a baseline time of 1-min play in the lowest level of the game. building
Brand embedment. In addition to recording brand mentions, this study recorded the potential
degree to which a brand was embedded in the advergame. Brand embedment refers to
the positioning of a brand throughout game play. Therefore, not only was the frequency
of brand markers recorded but the prominence of these markers and role they played
during the first level of game play were also recorded. Five categories, adapted from 2003
previous research (Lee et al., 2009), were devised to distinguish the extent of brand
embedment: primary, secondary, tool, billboard and frame.
A primary brand embedment involved the brand being embedded as an active game
component that had to be collected in some way (e.g. the player collects lollipops as he or
she moves through the skill levels of a game). A secondary brand embedment involved
the brand marker being an active component of the game (e.g. the brand is a bullseye
that the player shoots to earn points).
Within this secondary brand embedment, several subcategories were also recorded.
A brand embedment tool involved the brand marker being an active component of the
game with the brand being used as a tool or piece of equipment (e.g. soft drink bottles are
used as cannon balls to score hits). A brand embedment coded as billboard signified the
brand being embedded as an advertisement style within the advergame (e.g. pizza
brands advertised on billboards within the game). Finally, a brand embedment frame
denoted the brand being displayed in the frame of the advergame itself (e.g. on the outer
margins of the game window, lollipop shapes appear as a surround border).
Associative Implied
Full brand brand brand
Advergame Source mention mention mention
McDonalds Big Facebook MAU ⫽ 3 3 –

Mac farm 130,000
challenge
McDonalds Website 0.5 2 1
McWorld
Cadbury Joyville Facebook MAU ⫽ 2 5 –
8,000
Coca-Cola Website 2 1.5 0.5
Happiness Island
Coca-Cola Website 9 4 0.5
Football as it
should be
Coca-Cola Website 21 6 –
Stacker Table II.
Doritos Dip Facebook MAU ⫽ 6 9 – Brand mentions for
Desperado 100,000 each advergame
Chpa Chup’s Facebook MAU ⫽ 19 17 6 (hosted off website
Chupa Chucker 3,000 and Facebook page)
equated to base-unit
Note: MAU: Monthly average usage playing time of 1 min
EJM It was also recorded whether the brand marker was the brand product (soft drink bottle)
50,11 or brand logo (just the red letters of the logo, no bottle). It was found that 27 brand logos
and brand products were embedded across eight advergames. The brand logo was most
often displayed in the frame of the advergame, whereas the brand product was most
often seen embedded within the advergame as a billboard-style advertisement. In many
instances, the brand logo was displayed in the frame in conjunction with another style of
2004 brand embedment (e.g. the Coca-Cola logo displayed in the frame with an advertisement
for the brand product embedded in the advergame). Having the brand logo displayed in
the frame of the advergame meant that it was a fixed feature throughout the advergame
even when the scenes changed during play. Accordingly, the brand could be seen at all
times, increasing brand exposure and creating brand familiarity for the consumer.
Mobile applications
The mobile applications investigated in this report were downloaded free from the
Australian iTunes store (Table III).
Brand mentions. Similar to the other digital platforms, brand mentions for the mobile
applications were recorded as full, associative or implied. However, brand mentions
were also recorded for three different stages: before, during and after game play. This is
because once a mobile application is opened, the consumer can be engaging with the
brand without necessarily playing the game.
Brand mentions before game play were encountered before the game started (e.g. on
loading screens, instruction screens or practice tutorials or any screen displayed leading
up to the game). Brand mentions during game play were any brand markers seen during
the time it took to complete the first (easiest) level. Finally, brand mentions after game
play were observed on screens that appeared once the first level of the game was
completed, such as the Game Over screen or the scoreboard. Again, for comparison
across applications, the results were modified to represent the average number of brand
mentions identified in the 1 min of playing time.
Associative
Full brand brand Implied brand
Mobile app mention mention mention
Coca-Cola Happiness
factory 4 – 1
Coca-Cola Santa’s
Helper 8 8 –
McDonalds Rayuela 3 – 51
Mc Donald’s Happy
Meal City – 52 –
McDonalds’s Happy
Mission – 47 –
Table III. Chupa Chup Lol a
Brand mentions for coaster 3 279 279
mobile application Doritos 24 80 –
identified during one Pringles Flavour
minute of gameplay Grab – 20 –
The results indicated that full brand mentions were more common before game play, Relationship
whereas associative brand mentions were more often observed before, during and after building
game play. It was more common for the brand product than the brand logo to be
embedded in the game on a mobile application. Brand products were typically seen as
potential
active game components, either primary, secondary or used as a tool, whereas brand
logos were typically displayed as advertisements or used as a tool.
2005
Overall branding strategies used to advertise to young consumers (RQ1)
This section summarises the overall strategies used by these online platforms and
identifies a relationship-building thrust to the branding strategy used by these
companies. Particular subcategories of brand relationships that are seen consistently

are identified and linked to a macro-level understanding of branding strategy used by
the industry.
Brand as prize. The results show that food companies repeatedly use sales
promotions and competitions to engage the young consumer. Typically, the consumer
must purchase a product to enter the competition, and ultimately the prize is the brand
itself. This strategy is denoted “Brand as Prize”, as the goal is to portray the brand as a
reward and facilitate positive brand reinforcement. Many freebies and discount
purchases were offered as promotional elements.
In these circumstances, the child is positively reinforced and as a reward for
purchasing the brand, experiences even more brand connections. This leads to an
association between interaction with the brand and positive experience and generates
favourable emotions. Compared to traditional competitions (e.g. those on television or in
magazines), digital media encourage the young consumer to connect and interact
directly with the brand. The convenience of the internet enables the young consumer to
log on and engage with the brand several times both before and after the competition.
Motivation, opportunity and ability potential and “Brand as a prize”. The young
consumer is given a strong motive to engage, as freebies are attractive to them,
especially for young people who may have limited financial resources to otherwise buy
the product. The opportunity for the young consumer to connect with the brand by
entering personal details is easily facilitated. Parents can easily be bypassed when
young consumers are online. The ability of the young consumer to engage with the
brand online at this cognitive level is high. Accessing the brand online using
touchscreens and mobile devices is possible for even very young consumers. Thus, one
could say that MOA for the young consumer to engage with the “brand as a prize” is
high, and as a consequence the potential for the young consumer to become a partner in
the young consumer– brand relationship is high (Ji, 2008).
Brand as educator/Entertainer. To invite the young consumer to actively participate
with the brand on a deeper level, marketers have devised tactics that disguise
advertising as entertainment or educational content. This strategy is labelled “Brand as
Educator/Entertainer”. Such entertainment generates a positive memorable experience
for the young consumer, to which the brand is then strongly associated. Learning
elements are incorporated, leading to associative learning about the brand and positive
stories.
Mobile games and advergames, both on the internet and on Facebook, are examples
of the brand as an entertainer. There is a powerful impact in terms of reach when a brand
engages in social networking strategies to enhance the brand relationship. A brand can
EJM be embedded into a game in a number of ways. The centrality of the brand to the
50,11 primary tasks in the game affects the child’s engagement with the brand (Lee et al.,
2009). Mallinckrodt and Mizerski (2007) demonstrated that the nature of advergames
builds persuasion knowledge structures in the young consumer’s mind that increase
preference for a brand.
How a brand is embedded into a game plays an important role in the potential of the
2006 product advertised to persuade the young consumer (Lee et al., 2009). The current
findings show that food marketers consistently present brands in the frame or as the
background. This triggers the brand in implicit memory, which means that the brand
can then be recalled subconsciously (Schacter, 1987). Whereas the brand logo is
repeatedly shown in the frame, the brand product is shown most often in the game itself
as an active component. Jeong et al. (2011) found that a brand’s proximity to the primary
task in the game has an effect on memory, such that closeness to the primary task leads
to greater memory effects. When the brand product has a central presence in the game,
there is an immediate impact on memory recall. Hence, the brand logo is present in the
frame to be observed subconsciously at all times (having an effect on implicit memory),
while the product can be recalled quickly and automatically (as it is stored in explicit
memory). As an exploratory study, the present study is not able to demonstrate the
effects of brand placement in mobile applications on the young consumer’s memory, but
this would be an interesting avenue for future research.
This research also identified several educational activities undertaken by marketers.
Some are obviously related to the brand, such as providing information related to the
product category (e.g. information about chocolate provided by Cadbury). Alternatively,
other educational activities have subtler association with the brand (e.g. information
about polar bears found on the Coca-Cola website). Regardless of how closely they are
related to the brand, these activities are an opportunity for a young consumer to get to
know the brand and become more familiar with brand images and knowledge.
Motivation, opportunity and ability potential and “Brand as educator/
Entertainer”. The young consumer is motivated to learn more about the brand and its
associated aspects. Learning about the history of the brand (e.g. Chupa Chups) or
reading a story about it (e.g. the “Little Bits of Gold” story of Doritos) offer fun reasons
to engage with the brand and its story. Many opportunities to engage are provided, such
as an invitation to participate in a competition to choose the advertisement that would be
shown at the Super Bowl. That competition asked consumers to vote for various
advertisements for Doritos created by them (consumers) and posted online, with the one
receiving the most number of votes chosen to be shown at the Super Bowl game (the
biggest and most expensive advertising spot in the USA (https://l.facebook.com/l.php?
u⫽https%3A%2F%2Fcrashthesuperbowl.doritos.com%2F&h⫽_AQGcqEqh). The
ability to engage young consumers with a brand serving as an entertainer/educator
is also high, as the young consumers are able to easily access and engage with the
brand information, as it is cognitively simple to understand and emotionally fun and
easy to connect with.
Brand as social enabler

Through “Brand as Social Enabler” marketers use the brand to establish social
connections on digital media. Using social networking tools, marketers use a number of
tactics to connect brand users to one another and to the brand, prompting
communicative interaction. For example, Facebook enables consumers to interact Relationship
through status updates and shared posts. The most common use of this strategy building
involves Facebook’s tagging feature. A primary example is Coca-Cola asking followers
to spell out the word Coke by tagging friends’ names to each of the four letters. Pringles’
potential
Facebook page asks its consumers to “tag” a family member (www.facebook.com/
PringlesDownUnder/photos/pb.147488605448.-2207520000.1464066777./10153721177720449/?
type⫽3&theatre) with the flavour they like the most (a task they call “Pringle your 2007
family”). The Cadbury example mentioned above does the same and asks users to “tag
a friend who is the best beach buddy” to ___ (www.cadbury.com.au/About-Cadbury/
Competitions/CADBURY-DAIRY-MILK-with-OREO-BEACH-FRIENDS-Week-1-
Promotion.aspx) (see Appendix for promotion details). Evidently, marketers are using
the brand name to connect friends with each other but also to grow their own networks
of consumers. By facilitating social connections, the brand plays an active role as a
friend on Facebook. The communication with the brand becomes real, and this can lead
to a deeper relationship with the brand.
The most common way young children learn to be consumers through their
interaction on the internet is through word of mouth (Lee et al., 2003). Highlighting a
consumer’s regular interaction with friends and others in the virtual community
influences that consumer’s attitudes and behaviours. These findings explain why many
brands are promoting brand advocacy by encouraging consumers to tag or share a
product brand with their friends.
Motivation, opportunity and ability potential and “Brand as a social enabler”. Where
the brand is a social enabler, the motivation for the young consumer to engage is very
high. Kelly et al. (2015) report on an unpublished New Zealand study that shows how
children use Facebook sites to extend their social networks. Mehta et al. (2010) report
how Facebook is used by these food corporations to enable social connections.
Therefore, there are ample opportunities to interact with a brand as a social enabler. The
Australian Communication and Media Authority (ACMA) report of 2014 suggests that
45 per cent of 8-11-year-olds use social networking sites. Thus, they are well able to and
have the opportunity to engage with these brands, which help them connect with their
friends. The potential to build brand relationships is high in this context.
Brand as person. A common strategy that emerged from the content analysis is food
corporations’ efforts to personify the brand, denoted “Brand as Person”. Marketers have
traditionally used brand characters or brand animations to create this effect. Although
this is still the case, now the brand itself is being portrayed as a person. The surge in
social networking, and in particular Facebook, allows brands to have profiles, chat, post
and update, like any other Facebook user. This enables brands not only to have human
characteristics but also to engage in a two-way communication. The brand Facebook
page encourages the young consumer to interact and engage in direct communication
with the brand. For instance, the young consumer can ask the brand questions, talk to
the brand character or share photos. More significantly, the brand can respond to the
child in real time, giving substance to the brand relationship. Thus, this strategy goes
beyond personification of the brand to give the brand voice, easily enabling direct
relationships to be formed with the brand and the brand to be befriended.
Motivation, opportunity and ability potential and the “Brand as a person”. In this
particular branding strategy, we see the greatest potential for the brand to connect
with and foster a relationship with the young consumer. The anthropomorphised
EJM brand (e.g. Mr Pringle, www.facebook.com/PringlesDownUnder) speaks directly to
50,11 the consumer in the voice of the brand. For example, Mr Pringle may say, “All of a
sudden, everyone is beginning to look like me this month” (in “Movember
November”; when people are encouraged to grow a moustache to support men’s
cancer research; www.facebook.com/PringlesDownUnder/photos/a.1015010800582
0449.301743.147488605448/10151310449375449/?type⫽3&theater). In this posting,
2008 the brand invites a response, and this one gets 2,900⫹ likes. In interacting directly
with the brand, the young consumer is speaking to and reacting to what appears to
be a person. While not all young consumers are necessarily taken in by the idea of
the brand as an actual person, the game of make believe and fun urges them to
respond. In another example, the Chupa Chups man asks whether a “kale Chupa
Chup is a fail or not” and gets 221 responses (to a new brand extension idea) and
1,000 likes. Thus, market research questions are often presented in a fun and
camouflaged manner, and evoke many responses. Additionally, this communication
between the company and the consumer via the voice of the brand can reinforce
positive brand associations (Montgomery and Chester, 2009). It is clear that in this
branding context, the potential for brand relationship building is high.
Figure 1 shows how these four strategies are designed to build brand relationships
with the young consumer on digital platforms. Each strategy may appear in each of the
platforms: corporate website, Facebook and mobile applications. However, the
strategies listed in bold are those most commonly used in the respective platform, based
on the present findings.
Discussion
A new kind of brand relationship (RQ2)
The present results suggest that the branded communication strategies that food companies
are using in the online environment are creating conditions that appeal to young consumers
and foster in new ways to build brand relationships. As shown in Figure 1, these strategies
encourage young consumers to develop brand relationships online. Given that young
consumers are so often online, this immersive engagement is intense and potentially long
term. Fournier’s (1998) theory of brand relationships describes the brand not as a passive
object of marketing transactions but rather as an active contributing member of the
relationship dyad. The brand (in this framework) is considered an interactive partner with
assigned human qualities. Before Facebook existed, brands were personified through the
use of brand characters or even a brand personality. However, now brands can be interactive
partners in a relationship, as consumers can converse and share with brands, and moreover
brands can talk through posts and tweets (Brand as Person) directly. Hence, the brand
relationship is deeper, as it is now a two-way relationship, and the act of liking a brand on
Facebook is a declaration of a consumer’s approval or even affection for the brand. Several
researchers (Hoffman and Novak, 1996; Waiguny et al., 2013) demonstrate how such online
environments affect users and describe “telepresence” or the extent to which consumers’ feel
that they are inside/within the online environment. This immersive characteristic is what
makes the brand feel real to the young consumer and creates the potential for the
development of a brand relationship.
Keng and Lin (2006) show how marketers could create different levels of telepresence.
“Content presence” is a simple level of engagement where the online environment
creates attractive elements around the brand. This is seen in almost all of the online
Relationship
building
potential
2009
Figure 1.
Children and digital
brand relationships
platforms we analysed. The idea of “social presence” is one that helps consumers feel
that the product/brand helps them connect socially with others. This is exactly what we
see in the strategies around the “brand as a social enabler”; the telepresence created by
using social presence allows consumers to share material, create and interact with
content and others in a seemingly real way. Finally, there is “personal presence”, which
helps create a sense of personalised experiences with the product/brand that seem real.
This we see in the “brand as a person” and in instances where the brand invites the
consumer to customise the brand (e.g. choose a flavour, create an advertisement) and
where the brand speaks to individual consumers directly. This idea of presence creates
a level of engagement that is different and deeper than that created by traditional media,
and because of its embedded nature, it lessens the cognitive defence against its
persuasive effects (Owen et al., 2013).
The DMME provides a marketing context in which to build relationships based on
more than just exchange. Mathwick (2002) explains that the anonymity inherent in
online interactions allows online relationships to be more personal and rich in emotional
support and encourages consumers to reveal themselves more intimately. Hence, the
exchange between brand and consumer extends beyond mere transaction to friendship
and meaning. These traits of the virtual community facilitate the ease with which a
brand can act as social enabler to build the brand relationship, as shown in Figure 1.
Young consumers can experience things online that they may never be able to
experience in the real world. In the real world, children have limited financial
capabilities and lack the experience with the marketplace necessary to form “true
EJM relationships” with brands (as they often depend on others for direct consumption of
50,11 brands they may desire) (Ji, 2008). However, digital platforms allow young consumers to
be a part of brand communities and to have brand relationships with food brands. The
MOA that the young consumer has to have to form a brand relationship with these
corporations increases multi-fold within the DMME. Therefore, if this digital
environment has the potential to build relationships between young consumers and the
2010 brand, it becomes an area that needs to be monitored by regulators more closely than it
currently is.
Implications for policy

The difficulty of regulating internet content across national borders is often cited as a
reason why prescriptive legislation might not work. However, as Elliott and Cook (2013)
point out, Canadian authorities have brought successful fines against US companies
(Kellogg’s) who break Canadian bans on advertising online to young consumers (even
though such companies are located outside of Canada). They suggest that international
music corporations and other copyright-protected content providers successfully
“geo-gate” downloadable content to make it available in one geographical area but not
another. This tactic could just as easily be applied to advertising online across borders.
Several countries, notably in South America (e.g. Brazil, Peru), have passed legislation
that makes it illegal for companies to promote unhealthy food to children aged under 17
years through any media (Kelly et al., 2015). Loopholes to advertising to children include
programs and content that are not predominantly targeted at young consumers, but
they still blur the legality of the practice in countries such as the UK, where such bans
are in place.
Apart from the more prescriptive forms of regulation, Magnusson and Reeve
(2015) recommend regulations that follow a responsive approach and increase
regulatory oversight because self-regulatory measures do not appear to work. They
also recommend a gradual escalation of legislation if industry compliance falls
short. This successive review of self-regulation, reinforced by intervention by
governmental regulation if necessary, creates a more “accountable evaluatory”
system similar to that suggested by Kraak and Story (2015) and Kraak et al. (2014).
In the Kraak et al. (2014) model, an independent body is empowered to undertake
this accountability evaluation. A model of accountability structure within
governance, it allows for a four-step process by which food marketing policies and
their impact are first taken account of (i.e. evidence on existing policy impact is
evaluated), and then this account is shared clearly and transparently among all
stakeholders; the third step involves holding food marketers accountable, enforcing
regulations as they exist (including incentives and disincentives for self-regulation).
Finally, if this still does not have adequate impact, strengthening policies and
accountability would be the fourth step in a cycle of auditing governance and its
impact. This model, similar in some respects to Magnusson and Reeve’s (2015)
responsive regulatory model, is applied in the context of food marketing and also
more specifically to the use of cartoon or brand mascots for cereal marketing. The
conclusion that Kraak and Story (2015) arrive at is that in a systematically
evaluatory system with an independent body empowered to enforce standards or
policies, young consumers’ direct engagement with the food brand marketers will be
managed better, which could help lead to a less obesogenic environment.
Another alternative increasingly being voiced is a rights-based approach to Relationship
protecting young consumers from marketing techniques and communications that building
might be misleading or prevent them from leading a happy, healthy life. Citing the
UN convention’s rights of the child, Handsley et al. (2014) raise the possibility of
potential
legally declaring predatory marketing practices by food companies towards young
consumers in the digital context as economic exploitation. They advocate that
corporations need to use benchmarks, such as those used by the Human Rights 2011
Convention, to see how their marketing practices stack up ethically. Ethical and
international pressure may work better on multinational food corporations than the
legislation of any one national law.
Limitations and possible future research

This paper examines the digital marketing strategies that are used by food
marketers and has developed a conceptualisation of the potential for brands in this
context to connect, engage and possibly develop direct relationships with young
consumers. How exactly these young consumers react or respond to these attempts
to connect with them is difficult to say. However, in the examples we have analysed
and some of the examples we have described, we can see responses of consumers.
For example, on Facebook pages, the number of “likes” or “shares” and the
comments about the brand, and to the brand, are some indication that, in some cases
at least, the brand is indeed engaging interactively and in quite intimate ways with
young consumers (who share photographs and personal details about themselves
and their family/friends). However, while this study focuses on the marketer’s end of
the communication, it would have been particularly useful to content analyse
responses from young consumers themselves or speak to young consumers about
how they engage with these brands. This we see as the logical next step in our
research agenda.
Note
1. “[…] the level of communication is going to equate to the rational content in the advertising,
and the level of metacommunication is going to equate to the level of emotional content in
advertising” (Heath et al., 2006).
References
An, S. and Kang, H. (2014), “Advertising or games? Advergames on the Internet gaming sites
targeting children”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 509-532.
Australian Department for Health (2015), “National health and medical research council
Australian dietary guidelines: summary”, available at: www.eatforhealth.gov.au/
guidelines/about-australian-dietary-guidelines (accessed 15 February 2016).
Bourque, L.B. (2004), “Coding”, in Lewis-Beck, M.S., Bryman, A. and Liao, T.F. (Eds), Encyclopedia
of Social Science Research Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 132-136.
Boyland, E.J. and Whalen, R. (2015), “Food advertising to children and its effects on diet: a review
of recent prevalence and impact data”, Pediatric Diabetes, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 331-337.
Cheyne, A.D., Dorfman, L., Bukofzer, E. and Harris, J.L. (2013), “Marketing sugary cereals to
children in the digital age: a content analysis of 17 child-targeted websites”, Journal of
Health Communication, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 563-582.
EJM Dias, M. and Agante, L. (2011), “Can advergames boost children’s healthier eating habits? A
comparison between healthy and non-healthy food”, Journal of Consumer Behavior, Vol. 10
50,11 No. 3, pp. 152-160.
Dobson, R. (2012), “Logos ‘brand’ youthful minds”, available at: www.independent.co.uk/news/
science/logos-brand-youthful-minds-8165962.html (accessed 2 October 2012).
Elliott, C. and Cook, B. (2013), “Not so great! Ten myths of food advertising targeted to children in
2012 Canada”, Childhood Obesity, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 86-91.
Ferrazzi, K. and Benezra, K. (2001), “Journey to the top”, Brandweek, Vol. 16, pp. 28-36.
Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer
research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-373.
Freeman, B., Kelly, B., Baur, L., Chapman, K. and Chapman, S. (2014), “Digital junk: food and a
beverage marketing on Facebook”, American Journal of Public Nutrition, Vol. 104 No. 12,
pp. 56-64.
Handsley, E., Nehmy, C., Mehta, K. and Coveney, J. (2014), “A children’s rights perspective on food
advertising to children”, The International Journal of Children’s Rights, Vol. 22 No. 1,
pp. 93-134, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15718182-55680024.
Hang, H. and Auty, S. (2011), “Children playing branded video games: the impact of interactivity
on product placement effectiveness”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 1,
pp. 65-72.
Harris, J.L., Speers, S.E., Schwarz, M.B. and Brownell, K.D. (2012), “US food company branded
advergames on the Internet: children’s exposure and effects on snack consumption”,
Journal of Children and Media, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 51-68.
Harris, J.L., Schwartz, M.B., Munsell, C.R., Dembek, C., Liu, S., LoDolce, M., Heard, A., Fleming, F.
and Kidd, B. (2013), “Measuring progress in nutrition and marketing to children and teens”,
available at: www.fastfoodmarketing.org/media/FastFoodFACTS_report.pdf (accessed 12
July 2014).
Heath, R., Brandt, D. and Nairn, A. (2006), “Brand relationships: strengthened by emotion,
weakened by attention”, Journal of Advertising Research, p. 413.
Heath, R., Brandt, D. and Nairn, A. (2008), “Brand relationships: strengthened by emotion,
weakened by attention”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 410-419.
Hernandez, M.D. and Chapa, S. (2010), “Adolescents, advergames and snack foods: effects of
positive affect and experience on memory and choice”, Journal of Marketing
Communication, Vol. 16 Nos 1/2, pp. 59-68.
Hoffman, D.L. and Novak, T.P. (1996), “Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments: conceptual foundations”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 50-68.
Huang, H.H. and Mitchell, V.-W. (2014), “The role of imagination and brand personification in
brand relationships”, Psychology and Marketing, No. 31, pp. 38-47.
Hudson, S. and Elliott, C. (2013), “Measuring the impact of product placement on children
using digital brand integration”, Journal of Food Products Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 176-200.
IAB Australia (2014), “Online advertising spend Australia report”, available at: www.iabaustralia.
com.au/research-and-resources/advertising-expenditure/item/11-advertising-expenditure/185
1-iab-online-advertising-expenditure-report-quarter-ended-dec-2014 (accessed 7 July 2015).
Jeong, E.J., Bohil, C.J. and Biocca, F.A. (2011), “Brand logo placements in violent games: effects of
violence cues on memory and attitude through arousal and presence”, Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 59-72.
Ji, M.F. (2008), “Child – brand relationships: conceptual framework”, Journal of Marketing Relationship
Management, Vol. 24 Nos 5/6, pp. 603-619.
building
John, D.R. (1999), “Consumer socialization of children: a retrospective look at twenty-five years of
research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 26, pp. 183-213.
potential
Jones, S.C. and Reid, A. (2010), “Marketing to children and teens on Australian food company web
sites”, Young Consumers, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 57-66.
Jones, S.C., Mannino, N.L. and Green, J. (2010), “‘Like me, want me, buy me, eat me’: 2013
relationship-building marketing communications in children’s magazines”, Public Health
Nutrition, Vol. 13 No. 12, pp. 2111-2118.
Kelly, B. and Chapman, K. (2007), “Food references and marketing to children in Australian
magazines: a content analysis”, Health Promotion International, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 284-291.
Kelly, B., Cretikos, M., Rogers, K. and King, L. (2008), “The commercial food landscape: outdoor
food advertising around primary schools in Australia”, Australian and New Zealand
Journal of Public Health, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 522-528.
Kelly, B., Vandevijvere, S., Freeman, B. and Jenkin, G. (2015), “New media but same old tricks: food
marketing to children in the digital age”, Current Obesity Reports, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 37-45.
Keng, C.J. and Lin, H.Y. (2006), “Impact of telepresence levels on internet advertising effects”,
Cyber Psychology & Behavior, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 82-94, doi: 10.1089/cpb.2006.9.82.
Kim, K., Williams, J. and Wilcox, G. (2016), “Kid tested, mother approved: the relationship between
advertising expenditures and ‘most-loved’ brands”, International Journal of Advertising,
Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 42-60.
Kraak, V.I. and Story, M. (2015), “An accountability evaluation for the industry’s responsible use
of brand mascots and licensed media characters to market a healthy diet to American
children”, Obesity Reviews, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 433-453.
Kraak, V.I., Swinburn, B., Lawrence, M. and Harrison, P. (2014), “An accountability framework to
promote healthy food environments”, Public Health Nutrition, Vol. 17 No. 11, pp. 2467-2483.
Lee, C.K.C., Conroy, D.M. and Hii, C. (2003), “The Internet: a consumer socialisation agent for
teenagers”, in ANZMAC 2003 Conference Proceedings, Adelaide, Australia, pp. 1708-1715.
Lee, M., Choi, Y., Quilliam, E.T. and Cole, R.T. (2009), “Playing with food: content analysis of food
advergames”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 129-148.
Leibowitz, J. Rosch, J.T., Ramirez, E., Brill, J. and Ohlhausen, M. (2012), A Review of Food
Marketing to Children and Adolescents: Follow Up Report, Federal Trade Commission,
available at: www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/review-food-marketing-
children-and-adolescents-follow-report/121221foodmarketingreport.pdf (accessed 19
October 2013).
Magnusson, R. and Reeve, B. (2015), “Food reformulation, responsive regulation, and ‘regulatory
scaffolding’: strengthening performance of salt reduction programs in Australia and the
United Kingdom”, Nutrients, Vol. 7 No. 7, pp. 5281-5308.
Mallinckrodt, V. and Mizerski, D. (2007), “The effects of playing an advergame on young
children’s perceptions, preferences and requests”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 36 No. 2,
pp. 87-100.
Mathwick, C. (2002), “Understanding the online consumer: a typology of online relational norms
and behavior”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 40-55.
Mehta, K., Phillips, S., Ward, P., Coveney, J.D. and Handsley, E. (2010), “Marketing food and
beverages to children, on three Internet platforms: company websites, popular websites and
social network websites”, Report to SA Health.
EJM Montgomery, K. and Chester, J. (2008), Digital Marketing: NPLAN Marketing to Children
Learning Community, Berkeley Media Studies Group, Berkeley, CA.
50,11
Montgomery, K. and Chester, J. (2009), “Interactive food and beverage marketing: targeting
adolescents in the digital age”, Journal of Adolescent Health, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. S18-S29.
Montgomery, K.C. and Chester, J. (2011), Digital Food Marketing to Children and Adolescents:
Problematic Practices and Policy Interventions, Public Health and Law Policy.
2014 Montgomery, K., Chester, J., Grier, S. and Dorfman, L. (2012), “The new threat of digital
marketing”, Pediatric Clinics of North America, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 659-675, doi: 10.1016/
j.pcl.2012.03.022.
Montgomery, K., Grier, S., Chester, J. and Dorfman, L. (2011), Food Marketing in the Digital Age:
A Conceptual Framework and Agenda for Research, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Healthy Eating Research Program, Washington, DC.
Moore, E.S. (2004), “Children and the changing world of advertising”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 161-167.
Moore, E.S. and Rideout, V.J. (2007), “The online marketing of food to children: is it just fun and
games?”, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 202-220.
Nairn, A. and Hang, H. (2012), “Advergames: it’s not child’s play: a review of the research”,
available at: www.agnesnairn.co.uk/policy_reports/advergames-its-not-childs-play.pdf
Nelson, M.R. (2002), “Recall of brand placements in computer/video games”, Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 80-92.
Ofcom. (2014), The Communications Market Report: United Kingdom, Ofcom, London.
Owen, L., Lewis, C., Auty, S. and Buijzen, M. (2013), “Is children’s understanding of non-traditional
advertising comparable to their understanding of television advertising?”, Journal of Public
Policy and Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 195-206.
Redondo, I. (2012), “The effectiveness of casual advergames on adolescents’ brand attitudes”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 Nos 11/12, pp. 1671-1688.
Schacter, D.L. (1987), “Critical review implicit memory: history and current status”, Journal of
Experimental Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 501-518.
Waiguny, M.K.J., Nelson, M.R. and Terlutter, R. (2013), “The relationship of persuasion
knowledge, identification of commercial intent and persuasion outcomes in advergames –
the role of media context and presence”, Journal of Consumer Policy, Vol. 37, pp. 257-277.
Waiguny, M.K.J., Terlutter, R. and Zaglia, M.E. (2011), “The influence of advergames on
consumers’ attitudes and behaviour: an empirical study among young consumers”,
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 231-247.
Further reading
Achenreiner, G.B. and John, D.R. (2003), “The meaning of brand names to children: a
developmental investigation”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 205-219.
An, S. and Stern, S. (2011), “Mitigating the effects of advergames on children”, Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 43-56.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2011), Australian Social Trends: Children of the Digital
Revolution, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.
Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) (2006), “Children’s viewing patterns
on commercial, free-to-air and subscription television”, available at: www.acma.gov.au/
webwr/_assets/main/lib310132/children_viewing_patterns_commercial_free-to-air_
subscription_television.pdf (accessed 2 June 2012).
Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) (2007), “Television advertising to Relationship
children: a review of contemporary research on the influence of television advertising
directed to children”, available at: www.acma.gov.au/webwr/_assets/main/lib310132/tv_
building
advertising_to_children.pdf (accessed 29 August 2012). potential
Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) (2011), “Advertising to children”,
available at: www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc⫽PC_91814 (accessed 22 March
2012).
Bakir, A. and Vitell, S.J. (2010), “The ethics of food advertising targeted at children: parental
2015
viewpoint”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 91 No. 2, pp. 299-311.
Cairns, G., Angus, K. and Hastings, G. (2009), “The extent, nature, and effects of food promotion to
children: a review of the evidence to December 2008”, World Health Organization, Institute
for Social Marketing, University of Stirling.

Cauberghe, V. and Pelsmacker, P.D. (2010), “Advergames: the impact of brand prominence and
game repetition on brand responses”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 5-18.
Chester, J. and Montgomery, K.C. (2008), “Digital marketing to youth: an emerging threat”,
Consumer Policy Review, Vol. 18 No. 6, p. 8.
Clarke, B. and Svanaes, S. (2012), Digital Marketing and Advertising to Children: A Literature
Review, Advertising Education Forum, Brussels.
Cornish, L.S. (2014), “Mum! Can I play on the Internet: parents understanding, perception and
responses to online advertising designed for children”, International Journal of Advertising,
Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 437-473.
Federal Trade Commission. (2012), Mobile Apps for Kids: Current Privacy Disclosures Are
Disappointing, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC.
Harris, J.L. and Bargh, J.A. (2009), “Television viewing and unhealthy diet implications for
children and media interventions”, Health Communication, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 660-673.
Harris, J.L., Schwartz, M.B. and Brownell, K.D. (2009), “Marketing foods to children and
adolescents: licensed characters and other promotions on packaged foods in the
supermarket”, Public Health Nutrition, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 409-417.
Ji, M.F. (2002), “Children’s relationships with brands: ‘true love’ or ‘one-night’ stand?”, Psychology
and Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 369-387.
Jones, S.C. and Reid, A. (2009), “Children’s magazines: reading resources or food marketing tools?”,
Public Health Nutrition, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 393-399.
Jones, S.C., Wiese, E. and Fabrianesi, B. (2008), “Following the links: food advertising and
promotion on children’s magazine websites”, Journal of Non-profit & Public Sector
Marketing, Vol. 20, pp. 165-190.
King, L., Hebden, L., Grunseit, A., Kelly, B., Chapman, K. and Venugopal, K. (2010), “Industry
self-regulation of television food advertising: responsible or responsive?”, International
Journal of Pediatric Obesity, Vol. 6, pp. 390-398.
Knoop, M. (2009), “Application insights: how exactly is MAU calculated?”, Adweek, available at:
www.adweek.com/socialtimes/application-insights-how-exactly-is-mau-calculated/216387
(accessed 18 June 2015).
Kretchmer, S.B. (2005), “Changing views of commercialization in digital games: in-game
advertising and advergames as worlds in play”, available at: www.gamesconference.org/
digra2005/overview.php (accessed 18 April 2012).
Lee, M. and Faber, R.J. (2007), “Effects of product placement in online games on brand memory: a
perspective of the limited capacity model of attention”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 36 No. 4,
pp. 75-90.
EJM Mithen, J., Ashton, B. and Morton, H. (2007), “Children’s health or corporate wealth? The case for
banning television food advertising to children”, Coalition on Food Advertising to Children,
50,11 available at: http://cfac.net.au/downloads/briefing_paper.pdf (accessed 9 October 2014).
Montgomery, K.C. (2011), “Balancing the needs of young people in the digital marketplace”,
Journal of Children and Media, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 334-337.
Nelson, M.R. and Waiguny, M.K.J. (2012), “Psychological processing of in-game advertising and
2016 advergaming: branded entertainment or entertaining persuasion?”, in Shrum, L.J. (Ed.),
Psychology of Entertainment Media: Blurring the Lines between Entertainment and
Persuasion, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 93-146.
Piaget, J. (1960), “General problems of the psychological development of the child”, in Tanner, J.M.
and Inhelder, B. (Eds), Discussion on Child Development: Proceedings of the World Health
Organization Study Group on Psychological Development of the Child, International

Universities Press, New York, NY.
Scully, M., Wakefield, M., Niven, P., Chapman, K. and Crawford, D. (2012), “Association between
food marketing exposure and adolescents’ food choices and eating behaviors”, Appetite,
Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 1-5.
Tapscott, D. (2008), Grown Up Digital: How the Net Generation is Changing Your World,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
van Reijmersdal, E.A., Rozendaal, E. and Buijzen, M. (2012), “Effects of prominence, involvement
and persuasion knowledge on children’s cognitive and affective responses to advergames”,
Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 33-42.
Appendix. Links to examples of promotions by HFSS companies on social media

(1) Pringles Tag your family: www.facebook.com/PringlesDownUnder/photos/pb.14748860
5448.-2207520000.1464066777./10153721177720449/?type⫽3&theatre
(2) Pringoals post code promotions: www.facebook.com/PringlesDownUnder/photos/pb.147
488605448.-2207520000.1464067221./10152546710525449/?type⫽3&theater; www.
facebook.com/PringlesDownUnder/timeline?ref⫽page_internal
(3) Pop and Play promotion: www.facebook.com/PringlesDownUnder/timeline?ref⫽page_
internal
(4) Livestreaming pringled competition: www.facebook.com/PringlesDownUnder/timeline?
ref⫽page_internal
(5) Pringles Summer Escape Promotion: www.facebook.com/notes/pringles/tcs-pringles-
csummer-escape-competition/10153249143032382
Conditions of promotion:
6.1 Purchasing from any Coles Supermarket in a single transaction, any two 150 gram cans of
Pringles (any flavour) (“Eligible Product Purchase”) retain receipt; and then
6.2. Visiting the Pringles Facebook page (www.facebook.com/pringlesdownunder), and
following the instructions on how upload your “Pringles Summer Moment” and proof of purchase
to enter.
7. Entrants must provide all requested contact details and a photo of their “Pringles Summer
Moment” to be eligible to win.
(6) Chupa chups Flavour Market Research tester: www.facebook.com/ChupaChupsAustralia/ph
otos/a.339306246174163.66345.308823112555810/766202853484498/?type⫽3&theater; ww
w.facebook.com/ChupaChupsAustralia
(7) “Suck it, snap it, tag it” Chupa Chup competition: www.facebook.com/ChupaChupsAustralia;
www.chupachups.com.au/competitions/suckface/
(8) Children winners’ photos on Facebook: www.facebook.com/ChupaChupsAustralia/photos/a.72824 Relationship
2013947249.1073741840.308823112555810/725371174234333/?type⫽3&theater; www.facebook.
com/ChupaChupsAustralia/photos/a.728242013947249.1073741840.308823112555810/725371180 building
900999/?type⫽3&theater potential
(9) Coke “Share a coke and a song with a friend” Promotion: www.facebook.com/CocaCola
Australia
(10) Wet and Wild Summer 2014 promotion: www.Coca-Cola.com.au/promotion/wet-n-wild-terms; 2017
www.facebook.com/CocaColaAustralia
(11) Share your location for emergency coke: www.facebook.com/CocaColaAustralia
(12) Who is your best Beach Buddy? Competition: www.cadbury.com.au/About-Cadbury/
Competitions/CADBURY-DAIRY-MILK-with-OREO-BEACH-FRIENDS-Week-1-
Promotion.aspx
Conditions of promotion:
To enter, entrants must during the promotion period:
• visit the CADBURY DAIRY MILK Facebook Page at www.facebook.com/CadburyDairy
MilkAustralia?fref⫽ts; and
• respond to the promotional post posted by the promoter by tagging a Facebook friend and
comment on the post telling us in 100 words or less “Why they make the best beach buddy”.
Corresponding author
Teresa Davis can be contacted at: teresa.davis@sydney.edu.au
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Young Consumer Brand

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Young Consumer Brand

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

European Journal of Marketing

Young consumer-brand relationship building potential using digital marketing

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Young consumer-brand Relationship

Introduction and background

The digital media and marketing ecosystem

attractive to adolescents and teens: ubiquitous connectivity, personalisation,

Effects of digital marketing on young consumers

consumption of unhealthy branded foods.

Methodology and analysis

Tactics used on Facebook

McDonalds Big Facebook MAU ⫽ 3 3 –

companies. Particular subcategories of brand relationships that are seen consistently

Brand as social enabler

Implications for policy

Limitations and possible future research

for Social Marketing, University of Stirling.

Organization Study Group on Psychological Development of the Child, International

Appendix. Links to examples of promotions by HFSS companies on social media

Potrebbero piacerti anche