MONITORING

REPORT
April 2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & KEY RESULTS

4 ABOUT THE EU PLEDGE

7 COMPLIANCE MONITORING:
TV ADVERTISING
- Methodology
- Monitoring results

10 COMPLIANCE MONITORING:
COMPANY-OWNED WEBSITES,
COMPANY-OWNED SOCIAL MEDIA
PROFILES AND PILOT ON INFLUENCER
PROFILES

- Methodology
- Monitoring results

14 REVISION OF THE EU PLEDGE

IMPLEMENTATION GUIDANCE NOTE

14 UPDATE ON THE ACCOUNTABILITY

MECHANISM

15 CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS

16 ANNEX I:
ACCENTURE COMPLIANCE REPORT

24 ANNEX II:
EASA COMPLIANCE REPORT
Executive summary & key results

Background
The EU Pledge is a voluntary initiative by leading food and beverage companies to change food
and beverage advertising to children under the age of twelve in the EU, in line with Article 9.2 of the
Audiovisual Media Services Directive, which calls for codes of conduct on the marketing of certain
food and beverage products to children.

Signatories have committed to changing the way they advertise to children under 12 years old by
respecting the two following minimum common requirements:

• No advertising of products to children under 12 years, except for products which fulfil common
nutrition criteria1. Some EU Pledge member companies have taken the decision not to advertise
any of their products to children under 12.
• No product marketing communications to children in primary schools.

This is the eleventh annual monitoring report of the EU Pledge. In addition to the monitoring of
“traditional” TV advertising, which has been the object of monitoring since the first report of the
EU Pledge in 2009, the compliance monitoring has been adapted to address the evolving marketing
landscape. Since 2012 the monitoring also focuses on company-owned websites.

In 2018, the monitoring expanded its digital scope to company-owned social media profiles on
Facebook, YouTube and Instagram. For 2019, the EU Pledge signatories ran a pilot monitoring on
influencer marketing, which will become an integral part of the monitoring exercise in 2020.

The monitoring was carried out in 2019 by the following independent third parties:

Accenture Media Management2, to review EU EASA – The European Advertising Standards

Pledge member companies’ compliance with the Alliance, to review EU Pledge companies’ branded
commitment relating to TV advertising; websites and social media profiles, for compliance
with the EU Pledge commitment.

The methodology and process of the monitoring of company-owned websites and social media profiles
were reviewed by Professor Liselot Hudders, assistant professor at the Department of Communication
Sciences at Ghent University and a postdoctoral fellow of the FWO at the Marketing Department and
Dr Dieneke Van de Sompel, visiting Professor at the Department of Communication Sciences at Ghent
University.

1 Common EU Pledge nutrition criteria – for those member companies that do use nutrition criteria – entered into force
across the EU on 1 January 2015 and have been updated in 2018. These are available on www.eu-pledge.eu.
2 Accenture is a global management consulting, technology services and outsourcing company. Accenture Media
Management helps companies measure and optimise investments in marketing, media, retail and digital. It also provides
independent media auditing services, which is the function it performs with regard to the EU Pledge.

1
Key 2019 results

The record of compliance is positive and consistent with previous years:

• TV: The overall compliance rate is 98.9%

• 97% of websites reviewed were deemed compliant with the EU Pledge. 3 out of 101 websites
were found non-compliant with the commitment.
• 96.1% of social media profiles reviewed were deemed compliant with the EU Pledge.
6 out of 153 profiles were found non-compliant with the commitment.
• 100% of influencer profiles reviewed were deemed compliant with the EU Pledge.

Monitoring based on strengthened common

EU Pledge nutrition criteria
The EU Pledge was strengthened in 2015 through the adoption of harmonised nutrition criteria,
for those companies that so far have used company-specific criteria to determine what foods they
may advertise to children under 12.

The common criteria set energy caps, maximum thresholds for nutrients to limit (salt, saturated fat
and sugar) and minimum requirements for positive nutrients, category by category.

EU Pledge member companies that do not advertise any of their products to children under 12 at
all have decided to maintain their policies. Therefore, the common nutrition criteria are not relevant
for them.

The common nutrition criteria were revised in the course of 2017 and further strengthened in several
categories, with regard in particular to applicable thresholds for sugar and salt content. The updated
nutrition criteria were published in October 2018 and the changes were implemented for the most part
by the end of 20193. The 2019 monitoring exercise is the first one based on these enhanced criteria.

Growth in membership reflecting over 80% of food

and beverage advertising spend in the EU
The EU Pledge was launched in December 2007 by eleven leading food and beverage companies.
Since then, the EU Pledge membership grew to twenty-three leading food and beverage companies.
Together, EU Pledge member companies account for over 80% of food and beverage advertising
spend in the EU.

3 The enhanced nutrition criteria have been viewed positively in a report by the European Commission’s Joint Research
Center (JRC). According to the JRC, the percentage of products ineligible to be advertised to children under 12 increases
from 48% to 55%.

2
Further enhanced commitments
In 2014, EU Pledge member companies agreed to extend the scope of the EU Pledge commitment
to cover a number of additional media and to address the content of their marketing communications
by the end of 2016:

• Extension of scope: The EU Pledge initially covered commercial communications on TV, print,
third-party internet and company-owned websites. Since 31 December 2016, EU Pledge member
companies apply this commitment to radio, cinema, DVD/CD-ROM, direct marketing, product
placement, interactive games, apps, mobile and SMS marketing.
• Addressing creative execution: The enhanced policy ensures that where no reliable audience
measurement data is available, advertisers consider not only the placement, but also the overall
impression of the marketing communication, to ensure that if the product in question does not
meet the common nutrition criteria, the communication is not designed to appeal primarily to
children4.

In February 2020, EU Pledge signatories agreed to clarify in the commitment that EU Pledge member
companies will not use influencers whose primary target audience is children under the age 12 to
promote products that do not meet EU Pledge Nutrition Criteria. The group prepared guidance to help
member companies identify what kind of influencers these are, and specified appropriate disclosure
requirements, to provide transparency about the existence of a commercial relationship between a
brand and an influencer. The exact guidance can be found in the EU Pledge Implementation Guidance
Note. A pilot monitoring took place in 2019 and will be fully rolled out in 2020.

Increased transparency
To facilitate the implementation of the new commitments, EU Pledge members adopted an
implementation guidance document which outlines how the commitment applies in practice.
The Implementation Guidance Note is publicly available on the EU Pledge website5.

4 Further information about the enhanced commitments can be found here: https://eu-pledge.eu
our-commitment/#enhanced-2014
5 The EU Pledge implementation guidance is available here: https://eu-pledge.eu/wp-content/uploads/Implementation-
Guidance-Note-2020.pdf

3
About the EU Pledge

The EU Pledge was launched in December 2007 as part of signatories’ commitment to the European
Union Platform for Action on Diet, Physical Activity and Health, the multi-stakeholder forum set up by
the European Commission in 2005 to encourage stakeholders to take initiatives aimed at promoting
healthy lifestyles in Europe. In the context of the EU Platform, the EU Pledge commitment is owned
by the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA), which also supports the programme.

EU Pledge members
The founding members of the EU Pledge are the following companies: Burger King, Coca-Cola, Danone,
Ferrero, General Mills, Kellogg, Mars, Mondelez, Nestlé, PepsiCo and Unilever. The membership has
since been expanded, representing 23 leading food and beverage companies, accounting for over 80%
of EU food and non-alcoholic beverage advertising spend.

In 2010, the European Snacks Association (ESA) and its leading corporate members joined the
EU Pledge. Today, these are: Intersnack, KiMs, Lorenz Snack-World, Unichips San Carlo, Zweifel
Pomy-Chips, and Amica Chips which joined in July 2014.

McDonald’s joined the EU Pledge in November 2011, Royal FrieslandCampina in 2012, the Quick Group
in 2013 (before its acquisition by Group Bertrand in 2016) and Bel Group in 2016. Arla Foods
implemented the commitment in September 2017. MOM Group joined on 1 January 2019 and
participated for the first time in the monitoring. Lindt & Sprüngli joined in April 2020.

The initiative is open to any food and beverage company and restaurant (chain) active in Europe
and willing to subscribe to the EU Pledge commitments.

4
The EU Pledge commitments
The EU Pledge is a framework initiative whereby signatories are committed to changing the way they
advertise to children under 12 years old by respecting the two following requirements:

• No advertising of products to children under 12 years, except for products which fulfil
common nutrition criteria6. Some EU Pledge member companies have taken the decision
not to advertise any of their products to children under 12.

For the purpose of this initiative, “advertising to children under 12 years” means advertising
to media audiences with a minimum of 35%7 of children under 12 years8.

• No communication related to products in primary schools, except where specifically

requested by, or agreed with, the school administration for educational purposes.

Participating companies must all meet these criteria, but can go further. The framework EU Pledge
commitments provide a common benchmark against which companies can jointly monitor and
verify implementation.

Since the initiative was launched, all participating companies have made their individual corporate
commitments within the framework of the EU Pledge programme. All founding member company
commitments, published on the EU Pledge website (www.eu-pledge.eu), were implemented across the
EU by 31 December 20089.

To facilitate compliance with the EU Pledge commitments, member companies developed detailed
implementation guidance, for all relevant staff in marketing, media planning and corporate affairs
departments in all EU markets.

Third-party monitoring
In line with the Terms of Reference of the EU Platform for Action on Diet, Physical Activity and Health,
EU Pledge signatories are required to monitor and report on the implementation of their commitments.
EU Pledge member companies have committed to carry out independent third-party compliance
monitoring of the EU Pledge commitments.

This is the eleventh monitoring exercise. All previous Monitoring Reports are available on:
www.eu-pledge.eu.

6 Common EU Pledge nutrition criteria – for those member companies that do use nutrition criteria – entered into force
across the EU on 1 January 2015 and were updated in 2018. All applicable guidelines are published as part of the
individual company commitments under the EU Pledge on www.eu-pledge.eu.
7 This is a commonly agreed benchmark to identify media with an audience composed of a majority of children under 12
years old. This method of audience indexing has been agreed as a pragmatic system to determine the applicability of
advertising rules. Nevertheless, this is a minimum common benchmark for all EU Pledge member companies. For further
detail see: www.eu-pledge.eu.
8 The rationale for this threshold is the strong degree of academic consensus that by the age of 12 children develop their
behaviour as consumers, effectively recognise advertising and are able to adopt critical attitudes towards it. Although
children between the ages of 6 and 12 are believed to generally understand the persuasive intent of advertising, care
should be taken because they may not have a fully developed critical understanding.
9 In case of mergers or acquisitions, an agreed transition period is allowed for the implementation of measures taken
under the EU Pledge.

5
In 2019, EU Pledge member companies commissioned the following independent third parties to
monitor implementation of the EU Pledge commitments:

• Accenture Media Management10, to review EU Pledge member companies’ compliance with

the commitment relating to food and beverage advertising on TV.
• EASA – The European Advertising Standards Alliance11, to review EU Pledge companies’ brand
websites and social media profiles, for compliance with the EU Pledge commitment.

The EASA monitoring programme was externally reviewed by Professors Liselot Hudders and Dieneke
Van de Sompel from Ghent University (Belgium).

10 Accenture is a global management consulting, technology services and outsourcing company. Accenture Media
Management helps companies measure and optimise investments in marketing, media, retail and digital. It also provides
independent media auditing services, which is the function it performs with regard to the EU Pledge.
11 The European Advertising Standards Alliance brings together national advertising self-regulatory organisations in Europe.
Based in Brussels, EASA is the European voice for advertising self-regulation.

6
Compliance monitoring: TV advertising

Objective and scope

Accenture Media Management was commissioned to carry out the independent monitoring of member
companies’ compliance with the following EU Pledge commitment:

No advertising of products to children under 12 years,

except for products which fulfil specific nutrition criteria
based on accepted scientific evidence and/or applicable
national and international guidelines. For the purpose
of this initiative, “advertising to children under 12 years”
means advertising to media audiences with a minimum
of 35% of children under 12 years.

This is the eighth monitoring exercise assessing the compliance of EU Pledge member companies with
the enhanced commitment. Until the end of 2011, the audience threshold used was 50% children under
12. By lowering the audience threshold to 35% of children under 12 years, the EU Pledge commitment
covers more media channels that have a significant child audience. This commitment entered into force
on 1 January 2012.

For this exercise, six sample EU markets were chosen: France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Portugal
and Spain. The intent has been to cover a number of new markets each year, within the limits of data
availability and affordability, so as to assess performance in as broad a sample of Member States as
possible. Some markets have been covered repeatedly in order to provide a benchmark.

Methodology
Accenture Media Management was commissioned to analyse national audience data in the sample
markets over a full three-month period. This data is provided by official national TV audience
measurement agencies. Viewing estimates are obtained from panels of television-owning private
homes representing the viewing behaviour of households.

The data provides detailed statistics about advertising spots: advertiser, product, channel, programme,
date and time of broadcast, estimated audience and demographic breakdown – typically including the
segment 4-12 years of age.

Spots for products that do not meet the EU Pledge nutrition criteria, where applicable, were identified,
on the basis of full product lists submitted by each member company for each market. For those
member companies that do not apply nutrition criteria and do not advertise any products to children
under twelve, all spots were included.

7
For all these spots, audience composition at the time of broadcast was analysed on the basis of national
ratings data. This allowed Accenture to isolate ads aired at a time when more than 35% of the audience
was composed of children under twelve years of age.

All spots for products that EU Pledge member companies have committed not to advertise to children
under twelve, aired at times when the audience was composed of over 35% children under twelve, were
deemed non-compliant with the EU Pledge.

Monitoring results

The overall compliance rate was as follows:

• 98.9% of signatories’ TV advertising spots were compliant with the EU Pledge commitment

This figure is comparable to those reported in previous years in different markets (2013 compliance rate:
98.1%, 2014: 98.5%, 2015: 98.6%, 2016: 98.7%; 2017: 97.4%; 2018: 99.1%). The detailed compliance rates
reported by Accenture per market can be found in the Accenture presentation included in this report.

Statistical anomalies and overstatement

of non-compliance

It is worth noting that of the vast majority of spots found technically non-compliant (i.e. achieving
an under-twelve audience share above 35%, regardless of the time of broadcast and of the adjacent
programme), only a few can be considered to be certainly in breach of the spirit of the EU Pledge
commitment, i.e. broadcast in or around children’s programmes as such.

Most spots included as non-compliant in this report are spots broadcast in or around general/adult
programmes that were reported in national ratings data as displaying a share of children under 12
above 35%.

The reason for this discrepancy is that audience statistics for programmes and advertising spots with a
small audience – included in these monitoring results – are not reliable: a small audience means a small
sample of households, rendering the demographic analysis of the audience unreliable. For statistical
reliability, marketers typically exclude advertising spots below 1 Gross Rating Point (GRP). GRPs are the
measure of television ratings. They are calculated in relation to the target audience – children under 12
for the purposes of this analysis. In this case a spot with less than 1 GRP is a spot that reaches less than
1% of the under-12 audience in the country in question. These spots often display an implausible share
of under-12 viewers: e.g. a spot during a sports programme broadcast at 2am shows a child audience
of 100%. This is the result of statistical anomalies.

All non-compliant spots were nonetheless included in the reported non-compliance rates for the sake
of transparency and simplicity.

8
Follow-up
All instances of non-compliance were reported to the EU Pledge member companies concerned.
Companies were thus able to identify each non-compliant spot by market, product, channel and time.
This has allowed companies to take corrective action where necessary, to adapt media planning where
appropriate, and to update guidance to marketing departments where needed.

9
Compliance monitoring: Company-owned
websites, company-owned social media
profiles and pilot on influencer profiles

In 2011, EU Pledge members decided to enhance their framework voluntary commitments by

improving the coverage of the commitment in the online sphere. Since its inception, the EU Pledge
commitment has applied to advertising on TV, print media and third-party internet advertising.
In January 2012, EU Pledge member companies extended their commitment to company-owned
websites. By extending the coverage of the commitment to cover both third-party online advertising
and brand websites, the EU Pledge covers online marketing comprehensively. Since 2016, the EU Pledge
commitment covers all digital marketing communications, including social networking sites and
mobile apps. In February 2020, EU Pledge commitment clarifies that advertisers will not use
influencers whose primary target audience is children under the age 12 to promote products that
do not meet EU Pledge Nutrition Criteria. Influencer marketing was included as a pilot in the 2019
monitoring exercise.

Methodology
The European Advertising Standards Alliance (EASA) was commissioned to undertake a compliance
audit of EU Pledge branded websites and company-owned social media profiles.

Compliance with the EU Pledge commitment is determined on the basis of whether:

• The website/social media profile features marketing communications;

• Such marketing communications promote food or beverage products, as opposed to
a brand/corporate brand in general;
• Such food and beverage products meet or do not meet the EU Pledge common nutrition criteria;
• Such marketing communications are designed to be targeted primarily at children under 12.

A methodology with a ‘consumer-oriented approach’ was drawn up by the EASA Secretariat in

collaboration with the EU Pledge Secretariat and the independent reviewers of this exercise,
Professors Liselot Hudders and Dieneke van de Sompel.

National self-regulatory organisations for advertising (SROs) from eight countries (Czechia, France,
Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden) were asked to review a selection of EU
Pledge member companies’ national brand websites and social media pages which promoted
products not meeting the applicable nutrition criteria. The eight chosen SROs represent different
systems in terms of size, geographical location and maturity.

10
Each SRO was asked to review between 12 and 20 national brand websites, as well as 12 to 21 social
media profiles, in November 2019. SROs could review national brand websites as well as promotional
websites set up by the companies, but not the main corporate websites as these are by definition
intended more to inform the public rather than to provide services and entertainment, and their
content is generally not aimed at children.

SOCIAL
COUNTRY WEBSITES FACEBOOK INSTAGRAM YOUTUBE TOTAL
MEDIA

CRPR - CZECHIA 14 5 6 6 17 31

ARPP - FRANCE 11 7 8 5 20 31

DWR - GERMANY 11 7 8 6 21 32

SEE - GREECE 12 6 8 6 20 32

IAP - ITALY 12 6 8 6 20 32

SRC - NETHERLANDS 12 5 9 6 20 32

AUTOCONTROL - SPAIN 14 4 6 8 18 32

RO. - SWEDEN 15 7 4 6 17 32

TOTAL 101 47 57 49 153 254

When making their selection of websites and social media pages to review, the SROs were requested
to take into account products that are popular amongst children in their country. The reviewers were
requested to check if the marketer-owned websites complied with the EU Pledge criteria, using a
dedicated questionnaire and methodology developed by EASA, the EU Pledge Secretariat and the
independent reviewers.

The reviewers were asked to check whether the websites and social media pages contained elements,
such as games, animation, licensed characters and toys and to decide if these were in their view
primarily designed for children under 12., They also had to judge if these elements, in conjunction with
the overall creative execution of the website and social media pages (i.e. simplicity of language, use of
font size and typeface, use of colours etc.), were clearly intended to make the marketing
communication(s) primarily appealing to under-12s. Lastly, the reviewers noted whether the website
or social media page contained features to screen the age of the website visitor. Age-screening on
websites or social media pages, however, is not a prerequisite for SROs to determine compliance with
the EU Pledge.

On the basis of the level of appeal of the creative execution to under-12s and the overall findings
reported by the SROs, EASA determined the final compliance of the websites and social media
pages with the EU Pledge criteria in cooperation with the independent academic reviewers.

11
For the first time, EU Pledge members ran a pilot to monitor the compliance of posts from influencers
endorsed by EU Pledge members. The SROs reviewed a sample of 40 influencer profiles. Only profiles
that promoted non-compliant products with the applicable nutritional criteria were analysed. Out of
these 40 profiles, 76 posts were analysed by the experts, of which 68 were promoting products that
were non-compliant with the EU Pledge nutrition criteria.

TOTAL TOTAL REVIEWED

COUNTRY FACEBOOK INSTAGRAM YOUTUBE
PROFILES POSTS POSTS

CRPR - CZECHIA 0 4 1 5 12 11

ARPP - FRANCE 0 5 0 5 6 5

DWR - GERMANY 0 4 1 5 9 9

SEE - GREECE 0 4 1 5 11 11

IAP - ITALY 1 3 1 5 11 10

SRC - NETHERLANDS 0 4 1 5 12 9

AUTOCONTROL - SPAIN 0 5 0 5 10 10

RO. - SWEDEN 0 4 1 5 5 3

TOTAL 1 33 6 40 76 68

The reviewers were asked to check whether the influencers’ posts used techniques such as language,
visuals, games, promotional actions, humour, reviewing of toys or latest films, which would be primarily
appealing to children under 12.

Beyond EU Pledge compliance, self-regulation experts also flagged any item on a website that
potentially breached either one or several of the following advertising codes or laws:

• ICC Framework for Responsible Food and Beverage Marketing Communications;

• Relevant advertising standards and national sectoral codes;
• Relevant advertising laws.

All reviews were performed by self-regulation experts from national SROs, whereas EASA ensured that
the results were reported in a consistent manner.

Monitoring results
A total of 101 national brand websites, 153 company-owned social media pages, and 68 influencer
profiles were reviewed, all of which contained product promotion.

Out of these 101 websites, 3 websites were found not to comply with EU Pledge commitment, as it was
deemed to be designed to be of particular appeal to children under 12 and promoting products that
did not meet the nutrition criteria of the EU Pledge member companies. 2 websites reviewed contained
items that were in breach of advertising codes or relevant advertising laws.

Out of the 153 company-owned social media profiles reviewed, 6 were found in breach of the EU Pledge
commitment. 6 profiles reviewed also contained items that were in breach of advertising codes or
relevant advertising laws.

12
None out of the 68 influencer profiles reviewed were found in breach of the EU Pledge commitment.
4 out of the 68 influencer profiles reviewed contained items that were in breach of advertising codes or
relevant advertising laws.

• 97% of the company-owned websites reviewed were compliant with the EU Pledge
commitment.
• 96.1% of the brand social media profiles reviewed were compliant with the EU Pledge
commitment.
• 100% of the influencer profiles reviewed were compliant with the EU Pledge commitment.

Follow-up
The instances of non-compliance with the EU Pledge commitment were reported to the EU Pledge
member companies concerned, allowing them to take corrective action in a timely manner.

13
Revision of the EU Pledge
Implementation Guidance Note

In February 2020, the EU Pledge signatories agreed not to use influencers whose primary target
audience is children under the age of 12 in relation to products which do not fulfil the EU Pledge
common nutrition criteria.

The EU Pledge is a voluntary initiative that aims to respond promptly to new challenges and evolving
consumer expectations. Since its adoption in 2007, the EU Pledge has significantly enhanced its
commitment by increasing the types of media covered and by increasing its membership. These
changes are the result of a constant review of the commitments and an on-going dialogue with key
stakeholder and decision-makers.

The decision to formally include influencer marketing in the scope of the EU Pledge as of 2020 reflects
the rapidly growing importance of this digital marketing channel. In addition to a commitment not to
use influencers whose primary audience is children under the age of 12 in relation to products which
do not fulfil the EU Pledge nutrition criteria, the EU Pledge has prepared guidance to help member
companies identify what kind of influencers these are; and to specify appropriate disclosure
requirements, in order to provide transparency about the existence of a commercial relationship
between a brand and an influencer.

The full EU Pledge Implementation Guidance Note is available at www.eu-pledge.eu. The changes
described above were incorporated and published on the EU Pledge website in March 2020.

Update of the Accountability Mechanism

In 2017, the EU Pledge agreed to develop an accountability mechanism to give members of the
public and organizations the opportunity to question the compliance of members’ marketing
communications with the EU Pledge commitment. The mechanism takes stock of best practice
in advertising self-regulation at national level and is inspired by successful experience in Norway.

The system, developed in partnership with the European Advertising Standards Alliance (EASA), was
officially launched in November 2018 after a six-month pilot. It was presented to the EU Platform for
Diet Physical Activity and Health on 1 June 2018.

Since its launch, the EU Pledge Accountability Mechanism has processed ten complaints, of which five
were deemed in scope and three were upheld. All decisions and corrective actions are publicly
available at www.eu-pledge.eu.

Adjudication is administered by EASA and decisions are taken by a Panel of three experts from
advertising standards organisations12 appointed by EASA. Non-EU-Pledge-related complaints can
still be submitted at national level against national advertising standards, through EASA’s advertising
self-regulation network.

12 The three experts are appointed from a pool of nine experts who come from the national advertising self-regulatory
organisations of Bulgaria (NCSR), France (ARPP), Germany (DWR), Hungary (ÖRT), Ireland (ASAI), Spain (AUTOCONTROL),
Sweden (RO.), the Netherlands (SRC) and the UK (ASA/CAP), but are appointed in their own name. They are remunerated
by EASA for their work.

14
Conclusions and next steps

After eleven years of independent third-party monitoring, the EU Pledge has been able to
demonstrate a high level of member companies’ compliance with their commitments, as well as a
significant change in the balance of food advertising to children in the EU towards options that meet
common nutrition criteria, further strengthened in 2017. The membership of the initiative has also
grown from 11 to 23 member companies, to cover over 80% of food and beverage advertising spend
in the EU.

The EU Pledge is an evolving initiative aimed at addressing the dynamic marketing and media
environment in the EU. While it provides a common framework, member companies can make
commitments that go beyond it, and several do. Since its launch, most of the member companies
have stepped up their corporate commitments, tightening the way they define advertising to children,
broadening the scope of their actions and strengthening nutrition criteria.

In the same spirit and following constructive dialogue with stakeholders, the EU Pledge enhanced its
framework voluntary commitments, applicable to all members throughout the EU, in 2012, and 2014,
2017 and 2020.

Once again, the 2019 monitoring has shown that member companies were able to achieve high
compliance levels with the enhanced commitments. The ongoing improvement in compliance rates
for company-owned websites and social media profiles evidences members’ commitment to the EU
Pledge and points to the usefulness of the Implementation Guidance Note13 released in 2016 and last
updated in 2020.

The accountability mechanism complements compliance data with additional external scrutiny and
insight on potential company breaches. Importantly, the system brings the possibility to check and
improve compliance in all covered media and all member states, going beyond the coverage of the
annual monitoring.

Beyond monitoring compliance, EU Pledge signatories are in close dialogue with online platforms
under the leadership of the World Federation of Advertisers. The goal is to further reduce children’s
online exposure to products which do not meet the EU Pledge nutrition criteria. This fruitful
collaboration is ongoing, and progress will be reported in due course.

13 The EU Pledge Implementation Guidance Note is available here: https://eu-pledge.eu/wp-content/uploads/

Implementation-Guidance-Note-2020.pdf

15
Annex I: Accenture Compliance Report

EU PLEDGE
Advertising to Children Commitment
Compliance and Change Management
Report 2019
ACCENTURE
MEDIA
MANAGEMENT
Global Scale. Custom Results.

1. TV
COMPLIANCE
MONITORING
2. APPENDICES

ACCENTURE
MEDIA
MANAGEMENT
Global Scale. Custom Results.

16
TV METHODOLOGY
 Assess EU Pledge member companies’ compliance with the following commitment:
“No advertising of products to children under 12 years, except for products which fulfil specific nutrition
criteria based on accepted scientific evidence and/or applicable national and international dietary
guidelines. For the purpose of this initiative, “advertising to children under 12 years” means advertising to
media audiences with a minimum of 35% of children under 12 years.”
 Six sample EU Pledge markets were chosen for monitoring: France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Portugal
and Spain. All spots aired in these markets in Q1 2019 were reviewed for audience composition at time
of broadcast. Spots for products not meeting nutritional criteria and reporting an audience >35%
children under 12 were deemed non-compliant.

 EU Pledge member companies covered: Arla Foods, Bel Group, Burger King, The Coca Cola Company,
Danone, Ferrero, General Mills, Intersnack, Kellogg’s, Mars Inc, Moms, McDonalds, Mondelez, Nestle,
PepsiCo, Royal FrieslandCampina, Unichips and Unilever.

*Moms foods has been added to the advertisers list only in 2019.

Copyright © 2020 Accenture. All rights reserved. 3

TV METHODOLOGY
 The following total number of spots were analysed-
Total Spots for Restricted
Country Total Spots
Products
France 97,799 79,760

Germany 54,882 48,562

Hungary 280,056 247,205

Italy 221,223 179,526

Portugal 20,968 14,777

Spain 142,458 114,265

TOTAL 817,386 684,095

Copyright © 2020 Accenture. All rights reserved. 4

17
TV METHODOLOGY
 The TV advertising the compliance rates in this report are provided in two forms:

 For all spots aired: this is the formal EU Pledge compliance rate.

 For daytime (06h00-20h59) spots with at least 1 GRP: This second measure of compliance is intended
to help member companies identify genuine breaches, i.e. instances where spots for restricted
products were placed in or around daytime programmes reaching 35% or more children under 12. A
list of these spots, where applicable, is provided in this report. The demographic audience breakdown
for spots below 1 GRP is often unreliable, due to small audience size. These spots and those broadcast
at night time are included in the overall EU Pledge compliance results nonetheless, in view of
transparency and simplicity of external communication.

Copyright © 2020 Accenture. All rights reserved. 5

TV METHODOLOGY
 Statistical anomalies and overstatement of non-compliance
It is worth noting that of the vast majority of spots found technically non-compliant (i.e. achieving an under-twelve
audience share above 35%, regardless of the time of broadcast and of the adjacent programme), only a few can be
considered to be certainly in breach of the spirit of the EU Pledge commitment, i.e. broadcast in or around
children’s programmes as such. Most spots included as non-compliant in this report are spots broadcast in or
around general/ adult programmes that were reported in national ratings data as displaying a share of children
under 12 above 35%. The reason for this discrepancy is that audience statistics for programmes and advertising
spots with a small audience – included in these monitoring results – are not reliable: a small audience means a
small sample of households, rendering the demographic analysis of the audience unreliable. For statistical
reliability, marketers typically exclude advertising spots below 1 Gross Rating Point (GRP). GRPs are the measure of
television ratings. They are calculated in relation to the target audience – children under 12 for the purposes of
this analysis. In this case a spot with less than 1 GRP is a spot that reaches less than 1% of the under-12 audience
in the country in question. These spots often display an implausible share of under-12 viewers: e.g. a spot during a
sports programme broadcast at 2am shows a child audience of 100%. This is the result of statistical anomalies. All
non-compliant spots were nonetheless included in the report for the sake of transparency and simplicity, even
though they are, at worst, examples of “technical” non-compliance.

Copyright © 2020 Accenture. All rights reserved. 6

18
OVERALL COMPLIANCE RESULTS- ALL SPOTS
Compliance % by market Q1 2019 v Q1 2018
100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
TOTAL France Germany Hungary Italy Portugal Spain
Q1 2019 98.9% 99.6% 99.6% 98.8% 98.2% 96.7% 99.5%
Q1 2018 99.1% 99.7% 99.5% 98.5% 99.2% 98.2% 99.4%

Copyright © 2020 Accenture. All rights reserved. 7

OVERALL COMPLIANCE RESULTS- SPOTS > 1 GRP

Compliance % by market Q1 2019 v Q1 2018 for spots GRP > 1
100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
TOTAL France Germany Hungary Italy Portugal Spain
Q1 2019 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 100.0%
Q1 2018 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 100.0%

Copyright © 2020 Accenture. All rights reserved. 8

19
 1. TV
COMPLIANCE
MONITORING
2. APPENDICES

ACCENTURE
MEDIA
MANAGEMENT
Global Scale. Custom Results.

TV DEFINITIONS
 Spot - Each individual advertising activity - the airtime used by the advertiser

 Restricted products - Products that do not meet the advertiser’s nutritional criteria for marketing to
children

 Profile - Demographic breakdown of the audience at spot level, with regard to children under 12

 Impacts (Impressions) - Number of times a message is seen by the audience

 GRP (Gross Rating Point) - Percentage of the target audience reached by an advertisement, multiplied
by the frequency that the audience sees it.
For example, a TV advertisement that is aired 5 times reaching 50% of the target audience, would have
250 GRPs
(GRP = 5 x 50% )

Copyright © 2020 Accenture. All rights reserved. 10

20
TV CHANNELS MONITORED
C8+ FRANCE 3 M6 NT1
CHERIE25 FRANCE 5 MULTIDOC NUMERO 23
France CSTAR GULLI NRJ12 PUISSANCE TNT
FRANCE 2 HD1 TMC TF1

ARD N-TV SAT.1 Gold TLC

COMEDY C PRO7 ServusTVD VIVA
Disney Channel Pro7 MAXX sixx VOX
Germany DMAX RTL SkySpoNews WELT
KABEL 1 RTL II SPORT1 ZDF
Nick RTL+ SUP RTL
NITRO SAT.1 Tele 5

AXN Fox Life RTP1 TV Record

AXN Black Globo RTP3 TVI
BIGGS Hollywood SIC TVI24
Portugal CMTV National Geographic SIC Mulher
Disney Channel Panda SIC Noticias
Fox RTP Memória SIC Radical

Copyright © 2020 Accenture. All rights reserved. 11

TV CHANNELS MONITORED
AMC GALAXY4 MUZSIKA TV SPEKTRUM
ATV HISTORY NAT GEO WILD SPEKTRUM HOME
AXN HUMOR+ NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SPILER1 TV
BOOMERANG ID Nick JR SPORT1
CARTOON NETWORK IZAURA NICKELODEON SPORT2
COMEDY CENTRAL KIWI TV OzoneTv STORY4 (EX STORY5)
COMEDY CENTRAL FAMILY LICHI TV PARAMOUNT Super TV2
COOL LifeTv PRIME TLC

Hungary DISCOVERY CHANNEL M1 RTL Gold TRAVEL Channel

DOQ M2 RTL II TV PAPRIKA
DUNA TV M3 RTL KLUB TV2
DUNA WORLD M4 Sport RTL Spike TV4 (EX STORY4)
Ex FOX [14.03-18.04] M5 RTL+ VIASAT3
F+ MINIMAX SLAGER TV VIASAT6
FEM3 MOZI+ Sony Max ZENEBUTIK

FILM CAFE MTV Hungary Sony Movie Channel

FILM MANIA MUSIC CHANNEL SOROZAT+

Copyright © 2020 Accenture. All rights reserved. 12

21
TV CHANNELS MONITORED
Rai 1 Rai 2 Rai Premium Canale 5 Rai 3
Rai News 24 Rai 4 La7 Rete 4 Nove
Tgcom 24 Real Time Real Time +1 Italia 1 La7d
Mediaset Extra La5 Top Crime Iris Rai Movie
Premium Sport/HD Premium Sport 2/HD Premium Calcio 1 Animal Planet Vh1
Comedy +1 Dmax Sky Uno Giallo Discovery Travel e Living
ID Investigation Discovery Focus Dmax +1 Sky Uno +1 Premium Action
Cielo NatGeo People Studio Universal Premium Crime Premium Stories
Discovery Channel Fox Life Joi Premium Cinema Discovery Science
Discovery Channel +1 Fox Life +1 Gambero Rosso Channel Eurosport 2 Cinema Emotion
Tv8 Lei Lei +1 Eurosport/HD Premium Cinema Comedy
Cinema Energy Comedy Central Paramount Channel Radio Italia Tv Italia 2 Mediaset
Sportitalia Sky Cinema Hits Fox Animation Fox Comedy Sky Super Calcio
Italy Sky Cinema Comedy Sky Sport 2 Sky Sport Moto GP Crime+Investigation HD Sky Cinema Uno
Sky Cinema +24 Sky Cinema +1 Sky Cinema Passion Fox Crime/HD Fox Crime +1
Dove Tv AXN/HD AXN +1 Sky Calcio 6 National Geographic
National Geographic +1 Fox Crime +2 AXN Sci-Fi Sky TG24 (DTT) Frisbee
K2 Sky TG24 Primo Piano Sky Sport 3 Sky Meteo24 NatGeo Wild +1
Fox/HD Fox +1 NatGeo Wild History HD History +1
Sky Cinema Cult Sky Sport Plus Fox Sports Plus Sat Sky Cinema Family Sky Cinema Family +1
Sky Calcio 8 Nickelodeon +1 Nickelodeon Nick Jr. Boing
Nick Jr. +1 Super! Rai Gulp La 3 Sky TG24 (DTH)
Sky Atlantic Sky Atlantic +1 Teen Nick Music Party Premium Calcio 2 Sky Sport F1
Sky Sport 1 Sky Calcio 5 Sky Calcio 2 Sky Calcio 1 Sky Calcio 4
Sky Sport Mix Sky Calcio 9 Fox Sports Sat Rai Sport Rai Sport 2
Cartoonito Sky Sport 24

Copyright © 2020 Accenture. All rights reserved. 13

TV CHANNELS MONITORED
#0 COSMOPOLITAN GOL NICKELODEON
8TV CRIMEN + INVESTIGACION HISTORIA NOVA
A3 CSUR-AND IB3 ODISEA
AMC CUATRO LA SEXTA PARAMOUNT CHANNEL
AND-TV CYL7 LAOTRA REAL MADRID HD
ARAGON TV DARK MEGA SOMOS
ATRESERIES DECASA MOVISTAR ACCION SUNDANCE TV
AXN DISCOVERY MOVISTAR CINE ESPAÑOL SUPER3/33
AXN WHITE DISNEY CH +1 MOVISTAR COMEDIA SYFY
BEIN LIGA DISNEY CHANNEL MOVISTAR DCINE T5
BEIN MAX1 DISNEY XD MOVISTAR DEPORTES 1 TELEDEPORTE
Spain BEIN SPORTS DIVINITY MOVISTAR DEPORTES 2 TEN
BEMADtv DKISS MOVISTAR ESTRENOS TNT
BLAZE DMAX MOVISTAR GOLF TRECE
BOING ENERGY MOVISTAR PARTIDAZO TV MEDITERRANEO
BOM ESPORT3 MOVISTAR SERIES TV3
C.SUR ETB1 MOVISTAR SERIES XTRA TVG
CALLE 13 ETB2 MOVISTAR XTRA VIAJAR
CANAL COCINA ETB4 MTV ESP XTRM
CANAL HOLLYWOOD EUROSPORT NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC 3/24
CANAL HOLLYWOOD +1 FDF NEOX
CMM FOX NGC WILD
COMEDY CENTRAL FOX LIFE NICK JR

Copyright © 2020 Accenture. All rights reserved. 14

22
AGE GROUP DEFINITIONS
Country All Persons Children Under 12

France all Indiv Under 12's

Germany A 3+ Kids 4-12

Hungary Total Individuals All 4-12

Italy all indiv Under 12's

Portugal All individuals Under 12

Spain Ind. 4+ Ind 4-11

Copyright © 2020 Accenture. All rights reserved. 15

23
Annex II: EASA Compliance Report

2019

EU PLEDGE MONITORING
TOP LINE REPORT

24
2019 EU Pledge Survey

EASA
The European Advertising Standards Alliance (EASA) is the single authoritative voice of
advertising self-regulation in Europe. EASA promotes high ethical standards in commercial
communications by means of effective self-regulation for the benefit of consumers and
business. For further information, please visit: www.easa-alliance.org.
As a non-profit organisation based in Brussels, EASA brings together national advertising self-
regulatory organisations and associations representing the advertising industry in Europe.

EASA contact information

Lucas Boudet, Director General – [email protected]
Orestis Kouloulas, Project Officer – [email protected]

Tudor Manda, Project and Compliance Assistant – [email protected]

Copyright
The complete or partial reproduction of this publication is forbidden without the prior express
written permission from the EU Pledge Secretariat.

Compiled in
February 2020

25
2019 EU Pledge Survey

Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Project Overview ............................................................................................................................. 4
Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 6
Note on the Methodology .............................................................................................................. 8
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 9
1. Brand-Owned Websites ............................................................................................................ 11
1.1 Sample of Brand-Owned Websites .................................................................................... 11
1.2 Compliance with the EU Pledge Criteria ............................................................................ 12
1.3 Flagged websites ................................................................................................................. 14
1.4 Age screening & Parental Consent ..................................................................................... 15
1.5 Licensed Characters, Tie-ins & Celebrities ......................................................................... 16
1.6 Games & Entertainment Activities ..................................................................................... 17
1.7 Animation: Sound Effects & Videos.................................................................................... 18
1.8 Toys Used as Premiums & Prizes ........................................................................................ 20
1.9 Compliance with Advertising Codes & Laws ...................................................................... 21
1.10 Links to social media profiles............................................................................................ 23
2. Brand-Owned Social Media Profiles ......................................................................................... 24
2.1 Sample of Brand-Owned Social Media Profiles ................................................................. 24
2.2 EU Pledge compliance rate for social media profiles ........................................................ 25
2.3 Flagged Social Media Profiles ............................................................................................. 27
2.4 Age Screening & Parental Consent..................................................................................... 28
2.5 Licensed Characters, Tie-ins & Celebrities ......................................................................... 29
2.6 Games & Entertainment Activities ..................................................................................... 30
2.7 Contests, Competitions & Promotional events ................................................................. 32
2.8 Animations: Sound effects & Videos .................................................................................. 33
2.9 Language & Interaction....................................................................................................... 34
2.10 Compliance with Advertising Codes/Laws ....................................................................... 37
2.11 Links to other social media profiles ................................................................................. 39
3. Pilot on Influencer Marketing ................................................................................................... 40
4. Note from the Independent Reviewers ................................................................................... 43

26
2019 EU Pledge Survey

Introduction

EASA was commissioned by the EU Pledge Secretariat to review several food and beverage
brand websites and social media profiles belonging to the EU Pledge 1 member companies and
independently check compliance with the EU Pledge criteria as well as SR codes and national
laws.
The goal of the project was to determine whether the reviewed company-owned websites, and
social media profiles were compliant with the relevant EU Pledge commitment.
Compliance with the EU Pledge commitment, for brand websites and social media profiles, is
determined on the basis of whether:

• The website or social media profile features marketing communications;

• These marketing communications promote food or beverage products, as opposed to
a brand in general;
• Such food and beverage products meet the EU Pledge common nutritional criteria;
• Such marketing communications are designed to be targeted primarily at children
under 12.
Advertising self-regulation experts were requested to think from the perspective of a child
younger than 12 while reviewing brand websites and social media profiles and keep in mind
what a child of this age would find interesting and attractive. Special attention had to be paid
to specific aspects of the websites and social media profiles that would make them appealing
to under 12-year-olds.
In order to offer unbiased, independent, and accountable results, a ‘consumer-oriented
approach’ has been drawn up by the EASA Secretariat in collaboration with the EU Pledge
Secretariat and Dr. Verónica Donoso, the independent reviewer of the exercises that were
conducted between 2011-2016. The 2019 methodology was adapted by EASA, the EU Pledge
Secretariat and Professor Liselot Hudders 2, the independent reviewer of this exercise. The role
of the independent reviewers is to verify that appropriate criteria have been set up in the

1
The EU Pledge is a voluntary commitment of leading food and non-alcoholic beverage companies to limit their advertising to
children under 12 to products that meet specific nutritional standards. The EU Pledge is a response from industry leaders to
calls made by the EU institutions for the food industry to use commercial communications to support parents in making the
right diet and lifestyle choices for their children. The EU Pledge programme is endorsed and supported by the World Federation
of Advertisers.
2 Liselot Hudders is an assistant professor at the department of communication sciences at Ghent University and a postdoctoral

fellow of the FWO at the marketing department. She teaches courses on Consumer Behaviour, Communicative Skills and
Organizational Psychology and she serves as ad hoc reviewer for journals as Journal of Happiness Studies, Journal of
Adolescence, and Journal of Brand Management and for conferences as EMAC, and ICORIA. She participated in many
international conferences and published in various international journals. Her research interests include Persuasive
Communication, Consumer Behaviour and Advertising Literacy. Her research focus lays on how consumption affects an
individual's well-being. In particular, she is conducting research on how materialism and luxury consumption, green
consumption practices, and food consumption may contribute to an individual's happiness (both for children and adults). In
addition, she investigates how children and youngsters cope with (new) advertising techniques. She is particularly interested
in 1) how minor's advertising literacy can be improved, using advertising cues and advertising literacy training sessions and 2)
how parental mediation and peer influences moderate these effects.

27
2019 EU Pledge Survey

methodology, perform quality check on SROs’ reviews, testify to the correctness of the
monitoring procedure, and sign off on the EASA top line report.

Project Overview

Experts from 8 European self-regulatory organisations (SROs) were invited by EASA and the EU
Pledge Secretariat to conduct the monitoring exercise and assess the appeal of marketer-
owned websites and social media profiles to children under the age of 12. The eight chosen
SROs represent different systems in terms of size (big vs. small SROs), location (geographical
coverage) and maturity (new vs. old systems).
List of the participating countries

SRO - Country
CRPR - Czechia
ARPP - France
DWR - Germany
SEE - Greece
IAP - Italy
SRC - Netherlands
AUTOCONTROL - Spain
Ro. - Sweden

Below is a list of the EU Pledge member companies.

List of the EU Pledge member companies

EU Pledge member companies

Amica Chips Lorenz Snack-World
Arla Foods Mars
Bel Group McDonald's
Burger King MOM
Coca-Cola Mondelēz
Danone Nestlé
Ferrero PepsiCo
General Mills Royal Friesland Campina
Intersnack Unichips-San Carlo
Kellogg's Unilever
KIMs Zweifel Pomy-Chips

28
2019 EU Pledge Survey

Self-regulation experts from the 8 SROs reviewed a sample of 254 items, including national
brand websites 3 and social media profiles of EU Pledge company members. The independent
reviewers analysed 154 social media profiles, one profile more than the SR experts. A YouTube
account was left out of the monitoring’s scope as it contained videos and content dating back
to 2013. Ghent University considered it to be within their analysis’ remit, since children are still
able to visit it and visualise the videos. This explains the slight discrepancy in reviewed profiles’
numbers between the SROs and the Independent Reviewers.
Number of websites and social media profiles reviewed per country

Country Websites Facebook Instagram YouTube Social Media Total

CRPR – Czechia 14 5 6 6 17 31
ARPP – France 11 7 8 5 20 31
DWR – Germany 11 7 8 6 21 32
SEE – Greece 12 6 8 6 20 32
IAP – Italy 12 6 8 6 20 32
SRC – Netherlands 12 5 9 6 20 32
AUTOCONTROL – Spain 14 4 6 8 18 32
Ro. – Sweden 15 7 4 6 17 32
Total 101 47 57 49 153 254

Experts were also asked to review, as part of a separate pilot monitoring, 5 influencer profiles
per country. These influencers were provided to EASA by the EU Pledge member companies,
thus ensuring that the influencers and companies engaged in a commercial relationship. 4 The
table below indicates how many influencers each country monitored with regards to the three
different platforms analysed in the exercise. In total, 40 influencer profiles were monitored.
However, in order to maximise the number of posts reviewed, SROs were asked to find profiles
that worked with more than one company, and thus monitor several posts from one influencer
profile. This increased the number of posts reviewed to 76, of which 8 posts were found to
promote products that are compliant with EU Pledge nutrition criteria and were consequently
left out of the monitoring exercise. Overall, a total of 68 influencer profiles’ posts were
reviewed and analysed. The analysis of this part can be found on page 40.
Some of the influencers’ posts were left out of the monitoring’s scope as they were only
advertising products that were compliant with the EU Pledge nutrition criteria.

3 Where available, at least 1 website per company.

4 Not all EU Pledge member companies provided influencer profiles.

29
2019 EU Pledge Survey

Number of influencer profiles and posts reviewed per country versus the different social media platforms

Country Facebook Instagram YouTube Total profiles Total posts Reviewed

posts
CRPR – Czechia 0 4 1 5 12 11
ARPP – France 0 5 0 5 6 5
DWR – Germany 0 4 1 5 9 9
SEE – Greece 0 4 1 5 11 11
IAP – Italy 1 3 1 5 11 10
SRC – Netherlands 0 4 1 5 12 9
AUTOCONTROL – Spain 0 5 0 5 10 10
Ro. – Sweden 0 4 1 5 5 3
Total 1 33 6 40 76 68

Methodology

The EU Pledge Secretariat provided EASA with a list of all products promoted by the EU Pledge
member companies in the selected markets. The list indicated whether these products met the
applicable nutritional criteria set out in the EU Pledge Nutrition White Paper. From this, EASA
compiled a list of websites and social media profiles that promoted products that did not meet
the nutritional criteria. Based on EASA’s list the self-regulatory experts selected websites and
social media profiles to review. When making their selection, reviewers were requested to
consider products popular amongst children in their country.
For the influencer pilot monitoring, the EU Pledge secretariat provided EASA with a list of
influencers each member company worked with during 2019. EASA then asked the self-
regulatory organisations to select profiles that promoted non-compliant products with the
applicable nutritional criteria, and to especially choose the ones that may be most appealing
and popular with children under the age of 12.
To offer unbiased, independent, and accountable results, a ‘consumer-oriented approach’ was
drawn up by the EASA Secretariat in collaboration with the EU Pledge Secretariat and Dr.
Verónica Donoso, the independent reviewer of the 2011-2016 exercises. The methodology was
revised in 2019 by EASA, the EU Pledge Secretariat, and the current independent reviewer
Professor Liselot Hudders.
The questionnaire for the websites asked the self-regulatory experts if the website being
reviewed contained elements such as games/entertainment activities 5, animations/sound
effects/videos, licensed characters 6 and toys, and to decide if these were in their view primarily

5
A game/entertainment activity is an activity engaged for diversion or amusement. A non-exhaustive list of
games/entertainment activities are online interactive games, casual/social games, puzzles, board games, role-playing games,
trivia, card games, racing, arcade, colouring sheets, activity sheets, do it yourself activities, etc.
6
Characters acquired externally and linked for example to movies, cartoons or sports.

30
2019 EU Pledge Survey

designed for children under 12. Reviewers then had to judge if these elements, in conjunction
with the creative execution of the website (i.e. simplicity of language, use of font size and
typeface, use of colours, etc.), were clearly intended to make the marketing communication(s)
on the website primarily appealing to under-12s.
Several websites contained features to screen the age of the visitor and the reviewers were
asked to note if a website contained such features. However, this element was not considered
to be sufficient to ensure compliance if the marketing communications on the website were
clearly designed to appeal primarily to children under 12.
Based on the level of appeal of the creative execution to under-12s as well as the overall
findings reported by the self-regulatory experts, the reviewers determined the final compliance
of the websites with the EU Pledge criteria.
The questionnaire for the social media profiles asked the experts if the reviewed profiles
allowed children under 12 access without registration 7 and if they featured licensed characters,
games/entertainment activities, animations/sound effects/videos, contests and promotional
events, and to decide if the reviewed profiles were primarily designed for children under 12.

Reviewers then had to judge if these elements, in conjunction with the overall look and feel of
the social media profile, were clearly intended to make the marketing communication(s)
primarily appealing to under-12s.
The questionnaire for the influencer profiles asked the SROs what type of posts the influencer
was publishing and how often they were posting about food and beverage products. They were
then asked to select at least one post per profile that showcases a product from the EU Pledge
companies and to analyse whether the post included techniques that may render it appealing
to children under 12. Such factors included language, humour and writing style, the visuals, film
tie-ins, and animations displayed on the post, and whether there were any games, promotional
actions, or toys attached.
Beyond compliance of websites with the EU Pledge and primary appeal of social media profiles
to children under 12, the experts also flagged any items on the websites and social media
profiles reviewed that potentially breached any applicable advertising codes or relevant
legislation.
The following were considered:

• ICC Framework for Responsible Food and Beverage Marketing Communications;

• Relevant advertising standards and national sectoral codes;
• Relevant advertising laws.

7 Regardless of the fact that children under 13 are in theory not allowed to create a profile on Facebook, Instagram, and
YouTube, the questionnaire still included a question aimed at checking if the pages of this social media platforms were
accessible without registration and if they included language that encouraged the interaction or active participation of children
under 12. However, the age-gating factor was purely informative, and it did not carry weight in the final compliance
assessment.

31
2019 EU Pledge Survey

All reviews were performed by experts from national SROs. EASA’s role in the project was to
ensure that the results were reported on in a consistent manner.

Note on the Methodology

In collaboration with the EU Pledge Secretariat and independent reviewer Professor Liselot
Hudders, EASA has taken great care to ensure that the results of this project are objective and
consistent. They have – as explained above – developed a detailed methodology which was
applied by all self-regulatory experts when assessing brand websites and social media profiles.
However, although it may be relatively easy to determine if a website or a social media profile
appeals to children in general, it is much harder to determine if a website or a social media
profile is designed to appeal primarily to children younger than 12. As a result, the decisions of
the self-regulatory experts retain an unavoidable degree of subjectivity, although it is informed
by their extensive day-to-day professional experience. Readers are requested to bear this in
mind.

32
2019 EU Pledge Survey

Executive Summary

Brand-Owned Websites:

• A total of 101 national brand websites were reviewed;

• 97% of the brand-owned websites were compliant with the EU Pledge commitment – 3
websites were flagged as being primarily appealing to children under 12 due to a
combination of several factors, such as entertainment activities and games, toys and
prizes used as premiums, as well as constant display of animations, sound effects,
videos and photos, making them particularly appealing to young children;

• 98% of the brand-owned websites were compliant with the relevant local advertising
codes and laws – 2 websites were identified as breaching local self-regulatory
advertising codes or relevant national advertising legislation;

• 2 more websites were flagged as potentially problematic with regards to the EU Pledge
commitment due to several factors but were not tagged as primarily appealing to young
children;

• 1 website was highlighted as potentially problematic, come July 2020, due to new Dutch
SR rules on the inclusion of licensed characters aimed at children on food products.

Brand-Owned Social Media Profiles:

• A total of 153 social media profiles were reviewed;

• 96.1% of brand-managed social media profiles were compliant with the EU Pledge
commitment – 6 social media profiles were flagged as being primarily appealing to
children under the age of 12 due to a combination of several factors, such as
entertainment activities and games, contests, competitions, promotional actions,
presence of licensed characters, as well as the language style that directly addresses
children under 12 directly and encourage them to interact on the social media profile;

• 96.1% of social media profiles were found to be compliant with the relevant local
advertising codes and laws – 6 social media profiles were thus flagged as breaching local
self-regulatory advertising codes or relevant national advertising legislation;

• 1 social media profile in particular was also highlighted as potentially in breach of the
EU Pledge commitment due to the presence of influencers popular with both children
and teenagers on the profile.

33
2019 EU Pledge Survey

• 1 other social media profile was also found in breach, but its contents were outdated,
and the profile was thus left out of the monitoring. Such social media pages and
accounts that contain outdated marketing campaigns and that are primarily appealing
to children must be taken down.

Pilot Influencer Marketing:

• A total of 40 influencer profiles were monitored spread on three social media platforms,
Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram;

• SROs analysed 76 posts from the 40 profiles selected, 8 of which contained products
compliant with the EU Pledge nutrition criteria. These were subsequently left out of the
monitoring;

• All influencer posts were compliant with the EU Pledge commitment;

• 4 posts were flagged breaching relevant local advertising codes or rules, or the ICC
Code.

10

34
2019 EU Pledge Survey

1. Brand-Owned Websites

1.1 Sample of Brand-Owned Websites

A total of 101 websites were reviewed by the experts. The table below provides an overview of
the number of websites that were reviewed per country.
Number of websites reviewed per country

Country Websites
CRPR - Czechia 14
ARPP - France 11
DWR - Germany 11
SEE - Greece 12
IAP - Italy 12
SRC - Netherlands 12
AUTOCONTROL - Spain 14
Ro. - Sweden 15
Total 101

11

35
2019 EU Pledge Survey

1.2 Compliance with the EU Pledge Criteria

In order to determine whether a website was designed to target primarily under-12s, and
subsequently to assess if the marketing communications were intended to appeal primarily to
under-12s, all the following identified elements had to be considered. These included the use
of animations, sound effects and videos, entertainment activities and games, toys, or licensed
characters, tie-ins and celebrities, as well as the creative execution of the website, i.e. the
overall impression of the website design (use of colours, typeface, font size, language, etc.).
Decisive factors in judging the appeal of a website to young children were the usability of the
websites (i.e. ease of navigation), simplicity of language, font size, colour schemes and the level
of entertainment offered on the websites.
After careful review, the experts concluded that 98 out of 101 reviewed websites were found
to be compliant with the EU Pledge commitment.

Compliance with the EU Pledge commitment (N=101)

In breach, N=3,
2.97%

Compliant, N=98,
97.03%

12

36
2019 EU Pledge Survey

2 of the 3 websites that were flagged in breach of the EU Pledge commitment contained games
and entertainment activities that were deemed to be particularly appealing to young children.
2 of the 3 websites also contained animations, sound effects and videos that were also judged
appealing to children younger than 12 years old. However, none of the 3 websites displayed an
age-gating mechanism, licensed characters or celebrities, or toys as premiums.

Main indicators decisive on the websites’ compliance (N=3)

Toys and premiums

Licensed characters, tie-ins and celebrities

Animations, sound effects, videos and photos

Entertainment activities and games

0 1 2 3

Two SROs have also highlighted one profile each of the same company for being borderline
compliant. They deemed the websites particularly appealing to children younger than 12 but
have decided that they were not breaching the EU Pledge commitment. Reviewers found
considerable factors and content that would appeal primarily to children, such as games,
games’ descriptions, entertainment activities, animations, videos and photos, and licensed
characters and tie-ins. In order to avoid such cases and confusion, companies must be careful
not to walk a thin line between compliance standards.

13

37
2019 EU Pledge Survey

1.3 Flagged websites

SROs have flagged nearly two thirds (63.4%) of the company-owned websites for at least one
of the factors in the checklist. In order to identify and assess whether any of these 64 websites
were primarily appealing to young children, the experts had to weigh the factors together and
see whether, within the local cultural and linguistic context, it would appeal primarily to
children under 12.
Number of websites flagged for at least one of the factors in the checklist (N=101)

Non-flagged websites
N=36, 36.6%

Flagged websites
N=64, 63.4%

Below are the number of websites that were flagged for each of the category.
Number of websites flagged for each category (N=101)

Age-screening 2

Licensed characters, tie-ins and celebrities 16

Entertainment activities & games 45

Animations, sound effects, videos and photos 37

Toys and premiums 6

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

14

38
2019 EU Pledge Survey

1.4 Age screening & Parental Consent

2 of the 101 reviewed websites contained mechanisms to screen the age of the user. Methods
ranged from a field where the visitor had to enter his/her date of birth to a pop-up asking
whether the visitor was older than a certain age. This factor was not crucial to the final
compliance assessment of the websites.

Number of websites featuring age screening (N=101)

Age-gating
mechanisms
present, N=2,
2.0%

No age-gating
mechanisms,
N=99, 98.0%

15

39
2019 EU Pledge Survey

1.5 Licensed Characters, Tie-ins & Celebrities

The reviewers checked if the websites, or the children’s section(s) of the websites, featured
licensed characters or movie tie-ins as a means to promote food or beverage products. 16 out
of 101 websites featured licensed characters/tie-ins. In 4 instances, the reviewers considered
these characters/tie-ins as designed to target primarily under-12s. In addition, 2 of these
websites used the licensed characters/tie-ins to promote food or beverage products.
Number of websites featuring licensed characters/tie-ins (N=101)

Primarily appealing to
children under 12, N=4, 25%

No licensed Licensed
characters, N=85, characters, N=16, Not primarily
84.2% 15.8% appealing to
children under
12, N=12, 75%

The tied-in licensed characters were flagged as directly targeting children under 12 due to
several reasons disclosed in the chart below.
Main indicators for licensed characters/tie-ins considered primarily appealing to under-12s (N=4)

The licensed characters/tie-ins/celebrities are

linked to a promotion directed to children

The licensed characters/tie-ins/celebrities are

featured in the children’s section of the
website

The licensed characters/tie-ins/celebrities are

based on movies, video-games, books etc. that
children under 12 typically like

0 1 2 3 4

16

40
2019 EU Pledge Survey

1.6 Games & Entertainment Activities

The reviewers identified entertainment activities and games on 45 reviewed websites. In 8

instances, the reviewers considered that the entertainment activities/games were designed to
appeal primarily to under-12s. On 5 of these websites, the games and activities were used to
promote the product.
Number of websites featuring entertainment activities/games (N=101)

Primarily appealing to children

under 12, N=8, 17.8%

Not primarily
No games, N=56, Games, N=45, appealing to
55.4% 44.6% children under
12, N=37, 82.2%

The 8 profiles contained games that were flagged as directly targeting children under 12
because of the following factors:
Main indicators for entertainment activities/games considered primarily appealing to under-12s (N=8)

The instructions contain more visuals/animations than

written text

The instructions are concise (they are short and do not

contain much text)

A child younger than 12 could easily follow the

instructions to play the game

The game/entertainment activity is easy enough to be

played by children younger than 12

The game/entertainment activity is colourful/cartoon-

like and uses drawings/animations, etc. that are
appealing to children under 12

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

17

41
2019 EU Pledge Survey

2 websites of the 8 that displayed games and activities deemed to be primarily targeting
children were also using the entertainment activities to promote food and beverage products.
Websites used techniques such as:

• The advertised product is prominent in the game;

• The player is either collecting or working with the product itself;

• The game is constantly showing messages about the product.

1.7 Animation: Sound Effects & Videos

37 of the 101 reviewed websites featured animations such as cartoons, animations depicting
fantasy situations, sound effects or videos. According to the reviewers, 4 of these websites
featured animations, sound effects or videos which were designed to appeal primarily to under-
12s. In addition, 3 of these websites used these animations, sound effects or videos to promote
food or beverage products to children.

Number of websites featuring animation, sound effects or videos (N=101)

Primarily
appealing to
children under 12,
N=4, 10.8%

No animations, Animations, Not primarily

N=64, 63.4% N=37, 36.6% appealing to
children under
12, N=33, 89.2%

18

42
2019 EU Pledge Survey

Reasons as to why the reviewers considered the animations, sound effects and videos to be
appealing primarily to under-12s are featured in the following chart. The combination of several
of these criteria is a strong indicator that the animations are primarily appealing to young
children.

Main indicators for animation/sound effects/videos considered primarily appealing to under-12s (N=4)

The animations and/or sound effects and/or videos

contain characters based on movies, video-games, and
books etc. that children under 12 would typically like

The animations and/or sound effects and/or videos

contain music that is appealing to children under 12

The animations and/or videos use effects that are

appealing to children under 12

The animations and/or videos are colourful/cartoon-

like

The animations and/or videos are easy for under-12s

to understand

0 1 2 3 4

19

43
2019 EU Pledge Survey

1.8 Toys Used as Premiums & Prizes

The reviewers identified 6 websites that used toys as premiums to promote a food or non-
alcoholic beverage product. In half of the cases, the toys were considered to be designed to
appeal primarily to under-12s.
Number of websites featuring toys used as premiums (N=101)

Primarily
appealing to
children under
12, N=3, 50%
No toys, N=95, Toys, N=6, 5.9%
94.1% Not primarily
appealing to
children under
12, N=, 50%

20

44
2019 EU Pledge Survey

1.9 Compliance with Advertising Codes & Laws

2 of the 101 websites, the reviewers identified items that were considered as potentially in
breach of advertising codes and/or relevant advertising laws. These three websites differ from
the three that breached the Pledge commitment.
Compliance with the ICC & local SR advertising codes & laws (N=101)

In breach, N=2,
1.98%

Compliant,
N=99, 98.02%

On these 2 websites, a total of 2 breaches were found.

Potential breaches of advertising codes & laws (N=2)

Misleading

Misleading omissions

0 1 2 3

21

45
2019 EU Pledge Survey

Misleading refers to advertisements that contain promotional calls with slogans too vague or
too broad and could mislead the consumer of the actual promotion. Such advertising can be in
breach of the ICC Code or the Spanish Code of Advertising Practice.
Misleading omission refers to a lack of information that is crucial to the complete
understanding of the promotional action or product. Such cases include not inserting the total
stock of promotional coupons, lack of the end date of promotional actions, or other omission
that can mislead the consumer. These omissions can be in breach of Article 3, §e of the Spanish
General Advertising Law (“Ley 34/1988, de 11 de noviembre, General de Publicidad”), and
Article 7 of the Spanish Unfair Competition Law (“Ley 3/1991, de 10 de enero de Competencia
Desleal”). One website didn’t display any scale on the advertisement to inform the user of the
actual size of the product or toy that is attached to the product. SROs often advise that, in such
cases for children’s advertising, a child’s hand should be included so that the minor has a direct
reference of the size of the items. Such omission can be in breach of Article 3, §e of the Spanish
General Advertising Law (“Ley 34/1988, de 11 de noviembre, General de Publicidad”).

A new section of the Dutch Advertising Code for Food Products will prohibit the inclusion and
tie-ins of licensed characters that are popular with children on the product itself. This applies
equally for products that are compliant with the applicable nutritional criteria if the character
is aimed at children under the age of 7. The new rule came into force in February 2019 with a
transition period until July 2020 or “till existing media year contracts have expired”, meaning
that after then, the respective SRO will judge products displaying such licensed characters in
breach of Article 8 of Dutch Advertising Code for Food Products.

22

46
2019 EU Pledge Survey

1.10 Links to social media profiles

78 of the 101 reviewed websites included links to social media sites – either brand-owned or
influencer profiles (Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, etc).
Number of social media links in websites (N=101)

No social media
links, N=22,
21.8%

Social media
links, N=79,
78.2%

23

47
2019 EU Pledge Survey

2. Brand-Owned Social Media Profiles

2.1 Sample of Brand-Owned Social Media Profiles

A total of 153 social media profiles were reviewed by experts. 47 out of the 153 reviewed
profiles were brand-owned Facebook pages, 57 were brand-owned Instagram profiles, and 49
were brand-owned YouTube channels. The table below provides an overview of the number of
social media profiles that were reviewed per country.
Number of social media profiles reviewed per country (N=153)

Country Facebook Instagram YouTube Social Media

CRPR - Czechia 5 6 6 17
ARPP - France 7 8 5 20
DWR - Germany 7 8 6 21
SEE - Greece 6 8 6 20
IAP - Italy 6 8 6 20
SRC - Netherlands 5 9 6 20
AUTOCONTROL - Spain 4 6 8 18
Ro. - Sweden 7 4 6 17
Total 47 57 49 153

24

48
2019 EU Pledge Survey

2.2 EU Pledge compliance rate for social media profiles

In order to determine whether a social media profile was designed to target primarily under-
12s, and subsequently to assess if the marketing communications were intended to appeal
primarily to children under 12, the following elements had to be considered: the presence of
animations, sound effects, videos and photos, entertainment activities and games, contests,
competitions and promotional events, or licensed characters and celebrities, as well as the
language and/or level of interaction of the page.
After careful assessment, the reviewers decided that 6 out of the 153 reviewed social media
profiles were primarily appealing to children under 12.
Number of social media profiles primarily appealing to under-12s (N=153)

In breach,
N=6, 3.92%

Compliant, N=147,
96.1%

25

49
2019 EU Pledge Survey

Reviewers have flagged those 6 profiles due to a combination of several factors that were
assessed to be primarily appealing to children. These factors are disclosed in the chart below:
Main indicators decisive on the social media profiles’ compliance (N=6)

Direct encouragement to interact on the platform

Comments and posts from young children

Language style targeting young children

Contests, competitions and promotional content

Animations, sound effects, videos and photos

Entertainment activities and games

Licensed characters, tie-ins and celebrities

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

One SRO flagged a social media profile for breaching the EU Pledge commitment, but its
contents were outdated by several years. The profile was thus left out of the monitoring’s scope
as the purpose is to review marketing campaigns of 2019. Nonetheless, both the SRO reviewers
and independent reviewers have highlighted that such accounts and pages must be taken
down. The social media page is still primarily appealing to young children and many will be
attracted to its visual animations, stories, and entertainments activities. The experts are thus
advising to shut down such old accounts.

26

50
2019 EU Pledge Survey

2.3 Flagged Social Media Profiles

SROs have flagged about two thirds (66%) of the company-managed social media profiles for
at least one of the factors in the checklist. In order to identify and assess whether any of these
101 social media pages were primarily appealing to young children, the experts had to weigh
the factors together and see whether, within the local cultural and linguistic context, it would
appeal primarily to children under 12.
Number of social media profiles flagged for at least one factor of the checklist (N=153)

Non-flagged profiles
N=52, 34%

Flagged profiles
N=101, 66%

Below are the number of social media profiles that were flagged for each of the category.
Number of social media profiles flagged for each category (N=153)

Age-screening 5

Licensed character, tie-ins and celebrities 56

Entertainment activities and games 25

Contest, competitions and promotional content 62

Animations, sound effects, videos and photos 23

Language targeting children under 12 5

Direct encouragement to interact on the page 3

Posts and comments from children under 12 2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

27

51
2019 EU Pledge Survey

2.4 Age Screening & Parental Consent

5 out of the 153 reviewed social media profiles contained mechanisms to screen the age of the
user. Such systems would prompt the user to disclose their date of birth for access to the online
content. This factor was not crucial to the final compliance assessment of the social media
profile.
Number of social media profiles reviewed per country (N=153)

Age-gating
mechanisms,
N=5, 3.3%

No age-gating
mechanisms,
N=148, 96.7%

28

52
2019 EU Pledge Survey

2.5 Licensed Characters, Tie-ins & Celebrities

56 out of the 153 reviewed social media profiles featured “licensed characters”. In 6 instances,
these characters and/or tie-ins were considered to be designed to target primarily children
under 12. In addition, 4 of these social media profiles used the licensed characters/tie-ins to
promote food or beverage products.
Number of social media profiles featuring licensed characters, tie-ins or celebrities (N=153)

Primarily appealing to
children under 12,
N=7, 12.5%

No licensed Licensed Not primarily

characters, N=97, characters, N=56, appealing to
63.4% 36.6% children under
12, N=49, 87.5%

The tied-in licensed characters were flagged with content that was deemed primarily appealing
to young children due to a number of factors, disclosed in the chart below.

Types of licensed characters, tie-ins or celebrities featured in the social media profiles (N=7)

The licensed characters/tie-ins/celebrities are popular

among children under 12

The licensed characters/tie-ins/celebrities are based

on movies, video games, books etc. that children
under 12 typically like

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

29

53
2019 EU Pledge Survey

2.6 Games & Entertainment Activities

The reviewers identified entertainment activities and/or games on 25 of the 153 reviewed
social media profiles. In 4 instances, the reviewers considered that the entertainment
activities/games were designed to appeal primarily to under-12s. These 4 profiles also used the
entertainment activities/games to promote food or beverage products to children.
Number of social media profiles featuring entertainment activities/games (N=153)

Primarily appealing to
children under 12, N=4,
16%

Games, N=25, Not primarily

No games,
16.3% appealing to
N=128, 83.7%
children under
12, N=21, 84%

The following chart discloses the experts’ reasons as to why they considered the entertainment
activities and/or games to be primarily appealing to children under 12.
Main indicators for entertainment activities/games considered primarily appealing to under-12s (N=4)

The game/entertainment activity is colourful/cartoon-like

and or uses drawings/animations, etc. that are appealing
to children under 12

The instructions contain more visuals/animations than

written text

The instructions are concise (they are short and do not

contain much text)

A child younger than 12 could easily follow the

instructions to play the game/entertainment activity

The game/entertainment activity is easy enough to be

played by children younger than 12

0 1 2 3 4

30

54
2019 EU Pledge Survey

The three social media profiles were also flagged as using the entertainment activities as a
means to promote the food and beverage products. Below are disclosed the reasons why the
reviewers judged it so.
Main indicators for entertainment activities/games used to promote product to under-12s (N=4)

The game is constantly showing messages about the

product

The player is either collecting or working with the

product itself

The advertised product is prominent in the game

0 1 2 3 4

31

55
2019 EU Pledge Survey

2.7 Contests, Competitions & Promotional events

62 out of the 153 reviewed social media profiles included contests, competitions or
promotional events. In 3 cases, the reviewers considered that these contests, competitions and
promotional events were appealing primarily to children under 12. In 2 of these cases, the
contests, competitions, and promotional events were used as a means to promote a food and
beverage product to children under 12.
Number of social media profiles featuring contests/competitions (N=153)

Primarily appealing to
children under 12, N=3,
4.8%

Not primarily
appealing to
No promotional Promotional actions, children
actions, N=91, N=62, 40.5% under 12,
59.5% N=59, 95.2%

32

56
2019 EU Pledge Survey

2.8 Animations: Sound effects & Videos

23 of the 153 reviewed social media profiles featured animations, photos and/or videos. 19 of
these profiles were considered to be primarily appealing to under-12s, with 14 of these 19
profiles using videos and/or photos to promote food or beverage products to children.
Number of social media profiles featuring videos/photos (N=153)

Primarily
appealing to
children under
No animations, Animations, N=23,
N=130, 85% 15% 12, N=19,
82.6%

Not primarily appealing to

children under 12, N=4,
17.4%

The animations, videos and photos were flagged by reviewers as primarily targeting children
under 12 due to the following factors:
Main indicators for videos/photos considered primarily appealing to under-12s (N=19)

The videos contain music that is appealing to children

under 12

The photos and/or videos are colourful/cartoon-like

and use effects that are appealing to children under 12

The photos and/or videos contain characters based on

movies, video-games, and books etc. that children
under 12 typically like

The photos and/or videos are interactive and easy for

children younger than 12 to understand

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

33

57
2019 EU Pledge Survey

2.9 Language & Interaction

5 of the 153 reviewed social media profiles used language that was deemed to be directed at
children under 12, as it was considered plain and easy to understand by under-12s, as well as
directly addressing under-12s.
Number of social media profiles using language directed at children under 12 (N=153)

Language targeting primarily

children under 12, N=5, 3.3%

Language not targeting

primarily children under
12, N=148, 96.7%

The 5 profiles were flagged in this category due to the following reasons:
Main indicators for the language style directly targeting young children (N=5)

The social media site directly addresses young

children

The language used is plain and easy to

understand by young children

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

34

58
2019 EU Pledge Survey

In 2 social media profiles, one of which was also flagged for the above category, the reviewers
identified posts and comments which were likely to have been made by children younger than
12.
Number of social media profiles including any posts/comments/interactions from children under 12 (N=153)

Comments
from children
under 12,
N=2, 1.3%

No comments
from children
under 12,
N=151, 98.7%

35

59
2019 EU Pledge Survey

According to the reviewers, 3 reviewed social media profiles seemed to encourage the
interaction and active participation of children under 12. 2 of these profiles were also flagged
for the first category above on language style.
Number of social media profiles encouraging interaction and/or active participation of children under 12 (N=153)

Direct encouragement
to young children to
interact, N=3, 2.0%

No direct
encouragement
to children,
N=150, 98.0%

The reviewers considered the 3 social media profiles as actively inciting to interact on the social
media platform for the following reasons:
Main indicators for encouraging interaction and/or active participation of children under 12 (N=3)

It encourages children to “like” products featured on

the profile

It invites children to participate in

contests/competitions/events

0 1 2 3

36

60
2019 EU Pledge Survey

2.10 Compliance with Advertising Codes/Laws

6 out of the 153 reviewed social media profiles featured items that were considered to be
potentially in breach of advertising codes or relevant national advertising laws.
Compliance with advertising codes/laws (N=153)

In breach,
N=6, 3.92%

Compliant,
N=147,
96.08%

On these 6 social media profiles, a total of 4 breaches were found.

Potential breaches with advertising codes/laws (N=6)

Misleading omission

Misleading

Denigrating messages

Promotion of harmful health and/or eating behaviour

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

37

61
2019 EU Pledge Survey

Misleading omission refers to a lack of information that is crucial to the complete

understanding of the promotional action or product. Such cases include not specifying which
establishments adhere to the respective promotions, a lack of information on the total stock of
promotional coupons, or the end date of the promotion. These omissions can be in breach of
Article 3, §e of the Spanish General Advertising Law (“Ley 34/1988, de 11 de noviembre, General
de Publicidad”), and Article 7 of the Spanish Unfair Competition Law (“Ley 3/1991, de 10 de
enero de Competencia Desleal”).

Misleading refers to advertisements that contain promotional calls but do not specify that it’s
only valid if used on the brand-owned mobile app. Included in this category are the lack of size
references implying a toy attached to the product is bigger than it actually is. Such advertising
can be in breach of Article 1 of the ICC Code.
Denigrating messages refer to animations and videos that belittle otherwise healthy produce,
such as tea, carrots, and soups, in favour of other (sometimes less-healthy) food products.
Other denigrating messages include disparagement of competitors. This can be in breach of
Article 12 of the ICC Code.
The promotion of harmful health and/or eating behaviour refers to animations and videos
where an unhealthy product is suggested as a substitute to vegetables and fruits. Included in
this category is the promotion of excessive consumption of food or beverage products. This can
be in breach of Rule 29 of the Spanish Advertising Self-Regulatory Code, the French Advertising
Code, and the Greek Advertising Code (Food Annex).

38

62
2019 EU Pledge Survey

2.11 Links to other social media profiles

39 of the 153 reviewed social media profiles included links to other social media sites – either
brand-owned or influencer profiles (Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, etc).
Links to other social media profiles (N=153)

Social media
links, N=39,
25.5%

No social media
links, N=114,
74.5%

39

63
2019 EU Pledge Survey

3. Pilot on Influencer Marketing

The 2019 monitoring exercise also included a pilot monitoring on influencer marketing.
The purpose of the pilot was to provide an overview on the use of influencers by EU Pledge
companies in order to identify if the promotion done by the influencers could potentially be
problematic and be found in breach of the EU Pledge commitment in the future. For the scope
of this pilot exercise, the self-regulatory organisations monitored if:

o the influencers were officially endorsed by the EU Pledge companies and were
promoting non-compliant products;
o the post of the influencers appeared to be primarily targeting children under 12 and/or
o the post was intended to target children under 12.
Due to the nature of this exercise, the judgement of the influencers’ posts was from a subjective
point of view. This led to a difficult overall analysis of the results.

Experts from the SROs reviewed a sample of 40 influencer profiles that were officially endorsed
by the EU Pledge companies. 8 SROs only analysed profiles that promoted non-compliant
products with the applicable nutritional criteria. Out of these 40 profiles, 76 posts were
analysed by the experts, of which 68 were promoting products that were non-compliant with
the Pledge nutrition criteria.
In order to minimise the subjectivity, a specific checklist had been developed to help SROs
understand what was primarily appealing to under 12s when reviewing the influencers’ profiles.
The reviewers were thus asked which of the following techniques were used by the influencer
to appeal to children under 12:

o Language/Writing style - the influencer uses words and/or expressions clearly directed
at children, i.e. plain and easy language that an under-12-year-old can easily
understand, language belonging to children’s talk/slang;
o Visuals - i.e. there are animations, cartoons and/or colourful illustrations in the
influencer’s post;
o Games - the influencer’s post contains games to play that a child under 12 would like,
i.e. playing video games, crafting, cooking, etc;
o Promotional actions - the influencer’s post contains challenges and/or contest to win
prizes/toys that a child under 12 would like;
o Humour - i.e. jokes that children under 12 would find funny;
o Toys - the influencer’s post discusses toys, and/or the influencer is unboxing and/or
playing with and/or reviewing the toys;
o Films/TV shows/apps - the influencer is reviewing the latest kids’ movies, TV shows, web
series and apps.

8
Not all EU Pledge member companies provided a list of officially endorsed influencers.

40

64
2019 EU Pledge Survey

Reviewers analysed all 68 posts and after careful assessment to take all the above factors into
account, they concluded that all 68 posts were compliant with the EU Pledge commitment and
none were primarily appealing to children under the age of 12. The other 8 posts that included
products compliant with the nutritional criteria were equally compliant with the Pledge
commitment.
The reviewers did flag 3 posts that contained factors from the checklist above. SROs found that
two influencers made use of humour and comic situational scenes to attract the attention of
viewers. One other influencer used a language style that was deemed to be clearly directed at
young children. These cases were, however, not flagged as being primarily appealing to
children.

SROs have also analysed the posts against the relevant local SR rule, and have flagged 4 posts
that breached various national advertising codes or laws, or the ICC Code.
Compliance rates for influencer profiles’ posts against national SR & ICC Codes (N=68)
In breach,
N=4, 5.9%

Compliant, N=64,
94.1%

The breaches included 3 posts advertising promotional sales and promotional actions that did
not include the end date of the special action, and one post with a misleading claim as to the
composition of the advertised product.

41

65
2019 EU Pledge Survey

Moreover, experts found 52 posts displaying disclosures that were clear, immediate, and in line
with self-regulatory standards. These are vital for influencers’ posts as they inform the viewer
of the advertising nature of the post. SROs have highlighted that simply stating the brand’s
name after a hashtag does not count as a disclosure as the brand may not be aware of the
marketing communication conducted on their behalf.
Rate of disclosure display on the influencers’ posts (N=68)

No
disclosures
displayed,
N=16,
23.5%

Disclosures
displayed,
N=52,
76.5%

42

66
2019 EU Pledge Survey

4. Note from the Independent Reviewers

1. Critical Notes on the SRO reviews based on an Analysis of Inter-Coder Reliability

1.1 Research Methodology and Sample
A total of 101 websites, 154 social media pages (57 Instagram, 50 YouTube and 47 Facebook),
and 40 profile pages of influencers (Instagram, YouTube and Facebook) from different countries
were reviewed by SROs based on a standardized coding scheme. An independent team of
reviewers at Ghent University double coded 25% of these pages and profiles (based on a
random selection, N = 73) to check the quality and reliability of the coding. This eventually
resulted in a total of 25 websites, 38 company owned social media pages (14 Instagram, 16
YouTube and 8 Facebook) and 10 influencer profile pages (Instagram and YouTube) that have
been coded by the Ghent University team.
The independent reviewers used the same coding scheme as the SROs and all data were
entered in SPSS. Subsequently, the inter-coder reliability between the coding of Ghent
University and the SROs was analysed in SPSS Statistics by calculating Cohen’s Kappa. The closer
the Cohen’s Kappa is to one, the more agreement in coding between the independent coder
and the SROs’ coding; the closer the Cohen’s Kappa is to zero, the more disagreement there is
between the coders 9. The results were further discussed within the team and are reported in
this note. The results of the Cohen’s Kappa analysis show a general reliability of .73 for the
websites, .68 for the social media profiles and .45 for the influencer profiles. This indicates a
good agreement for the websites, a good agreement for the social media profiles and a fair
agreement for the influencer profiles. Below, the reasons are outlined that may explain the
(minor) disagreement in coding:

• Firstly, some disagreement can be explained due to the difference in timing between
the reviews of the independent coders and the SROs (a delay of one month and a half).
In that period, there may have been some changes to the websites/ social media. For
example, competitions, videos, etc., could have been added or removed. The
independent reviewers for example found one social media site (YouTube) where new
content was added in the past couple of weeks. This content was in breach, so the brand
was flagged by the independent reviewers but not by the SRO (since it was not online
at the time of their evaluation).
• A second point is the difference in lang ua g e. The different languages form a barrier
when it comes to evaluating the language used on the websites and social media
profiles. All content has been translated by the coders, however, small nuances might
have been missed which could have led to a different evaluation. Also, each SRO coded
cases for his/her own country, which might also generate differences in coding across

9 Cohen’s Kappa is a measure used to assess inter-rater reliability in nominal data and compares to what extent the observations

of two coders can be perceived as being alike. By doing so, measurement errors can be reduced. More agreement between
the values of two coders (which is related to values closer to 1) indicates that there is more consensus about the question
between the coders. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and psychological
measurement, 20(1), 37-46.

43

67
2019 EU Pledge Survey

SROs. The independent coding team coded cases across countries and was able to
compare these different cases and evaluate them accordingly.
• A third reason for divergence in coding is the way in which sponsoring is disclosed on
social media. Where some SROs considered a reference to the brand (@brandX) in a
post as a disclosure, independent reviewers disagreed this was sufficient, in line with
EASA.
• Finally, the questionnaire specifically instructs coders to indicate which posts are
primarily appealing to children under 12. The independent coders also flagged specific
elements of posts/websites that could be appealing to young children, next to
evaluating the posts/websites as a whole. In future monitoring exercises, an orange
code could be implemented to mark that one or more elements of a social media post
or website appeal to children. In addition, it should be clearer when a final breach
should be indicated (i.e., when multiple elements of the post or site are in breach).

1.2 Inter-coder reliability analysis of company-owned websites

The results of the inter-coder reliability for the websites are reported in table 1. Twenty-five
websites were coded by the independent reviewers. The results of the inter-coder reliability
between the work of the SROs and of the independent coders show a good agreement except
for the questions about the presence of animations and toys on the website. On these
questions, the independent reviewers and SROs had only a fair to moderate agreement.
The randomly selected websites that were coded by the independent reviewers contained no
websites that were finally flagged by the SROs. Our analysis however identified one site that
can be considered to be in breach (due to the presence of videos, apps and licensed characters
that are appealing to young children). In addition, nine sites were flagged with an orange code
because they contained multiple elements that were in breach with EU Pledge criteria. For
example, some websites contained contests with prizes targeted at adults which may also be
appealing to children under 12. The independent reviewers also found websites that used
cartoon-like animations and included information that tried to persuade children directly to
buy products by offering them gifts.
1.3 Inter-coder reliability analysis of social media profiles (Facebook, Instagram and
YouTube)
Table 2 provides an overview of the Cohen’s Kappa of the coding of the social media sites. In
total, 38 social media sites were double coded by the independent reviewers. When examining
the questions separately, Cohen’s Kappa ranges from fair to substantial agreement.
First, both the SROs and the independent reviewers signalled 3 social media sites (one
Facebook page and two YouTube channels) that are in breach with the EU Pledge criteria. These
social media sites contained pictures, videos, visual lay-outs, contests and games endorsed by
licensed characters that are appealing to young children (e.g., showing colourful, happy and
child-targeted pictures).
The independent reviewers additionally flagged 7 social media pages that they believed to be
appealing to young children (three Facebook pages; one Instagram page and three YouTube
videos). This mainly because of colourful, fun images or videos that encourage children to nag
for the product (e.g., one social media page included pictures of a child eating the product and
an easy to play riddle/contest). Moreover, some Facebook-pages flagged by the independent

44

68
2019 EU Pledge Survey

reviewers targeted children through contests or games. However, it should be noted that
several of these contests date from before 2019, so perhaps SROs did not take this into account
for the exercise of this year, which explains the difference in flagging. Also, one example
concerns a series of videos uploaded on YouTube after the time of the evaluation of the SROs
(they could therefore not have seen it).
The independent reviewers also want to point attention to several social media pages that
mainly target parents of young children. Because they do not directly appeal to children when
strictly following the Pledge, they were not finally flagged. However, the content on these pages
is easy enough to be understood by children, the fun-looking images might stimulate pester
power and some of the posts are clearly directed at children, for instance showing craft
activities using the product packaging.
1.4 Inter-coder reliability analysis of influencer social media profiles (Instagram,
Facebook & YouTube)
Table 3 provides an overview of the Cohen’s Kappa of the coding of the influencer profiles. The
SROs provided a list of 39 influencer profiles cooperating with different brands. The
independent reviewers selected a random sample of 10 influencer profiles, after which they
checked which brands cooperated with the influencers. First, 20 posts that were evaluated by
the SROs were checked and double coded. Hereafter, the independent reviewers scrolled
through the influencers’ entire profile to look for other sponsored posts that display products
from brands that are members of the pledge. As such, 10 additional posts were evaluated by
the independent reviewers.
In line with the SROs, the independent reviewers argued that none of the 20 influencer posts
and videos that were double coded were primarily appealing to children under twelve.
However, one influencer was clearly targeting parents of young children while promoting one
of the brands committed to the EU-Pledge. She posted a video on YouTube of her toddler
interacting with the products. The SROs also considered this influencer’s listed YouTube video
as an example in which parents are targeted. When exploring this influencer’s Instagram profile
(which was only done by the independent reviewers, not by the SROs), the same strategy was
used to promote the brand in question. Moreover, the independent reviewers noticed she was
also promoting a brand that is a member of the pledge but that did not include a potential
partnership with this influencer in the list provided to the reviewers. According to the
independent reviewers, one Instagram post featuring this brand in particular, is in breach. In
this particular post, the influencer claims that visiting a particular fast food restaurant with her
family was something that made her very happy as a child and argues that she is happy she can
now share this experience with her child. This post insinuates that in order to make your child
happy, you should visit the restaurant. She also reports the whole visit in one of her vlogs on
YouTube.
According to the independent reviewers, 13 out of the 20 double-coded influencer posts did
not use any form of advertising disclosure. Some SROs considered a reference to the brand
(@BrandX) in these influencers’ posts as a disclosure, which explains the low Cohen’s kappa for
this question. However, the independent reviewers argued that this disclosure is not sufficient
as indicated in the recent EASA guideline. Seven out of twenty double-coded influencer posts
and videos did use a form of disclosure according to the independent reviewers. Two Instagram
posts used a hashtag at the end of the caption, such as #werbung and #partenariat. Two

45

69
2019 EU Pledge Survey

YouTube videos used a written disclosure and one YouTube video used an audio disclosure,
each of them in the influencer’s language. To conclude, two Instagram posts used Instagram’s
paid partnership feature. While this is certainly a good manner to create more transparency, it
depends on national guidance regarding influencer marketing whether this meets
requirements for clear disclosure.

2. General Conclusions
Based on the analysis of the independent reviewers, some general concerns and conclusions
are generated:
• Overall assessment
Overall, the majority of the websites and social media pages analysed by the independent
reviewers are primarily designed for teenagers and adults. The general look and feel gives the
impression that the pages are not primarily targeting children. Only a few websites and social
media pages made their content specifically attractive for children.

• Children as primary target group

While reviewers and SROs agreed that most coded sites were not primarily designed to appeal
to children under 12, the independent reviewers want to bring under the attention the
subjectivity of the phrasing “primarily appealing to children under twelve” and also the nature
of this final question as a general evaluation tool. The question used to make this evaluation is
put at the end of the questionnaire as a final evaluation method of the websites, but can be
interpreted in a subjective manner and possibly even dilutes specific breaches that were
flagged, but not seen as critical to flag the whole website. For example, despite the fact that it
may occur that the general look and feel of the websites or social media pages does not
specifically appeal to young children, some elements (e.g., pictures, videos, games, recipes)
have been found that do give the impression that the brands target young children. Both the
SROs and the independent reviewers thus reported several elements which can be found
attractive by young children.
Websites often do not use language that is clearly directed at children, but they contain
contests or craft ideas specifically designed to target children. Some sites are clearly directed
at older children (teenagers), but children around the age of 10-11 might be visiting these sites
and find them appealing. For example, contests with an age limit (+18) are easy to circumvent
by inserting a fake age. The independent reviewers therefore propose a more nuanced output
mechanism, where the final evaluation of breaches is reported as being critical overall (red flag)
or critical in some specific aspects (orange flag).

• Impossible to retrieve (targeted) social media ads and Instagram stories

Currently, some advertising tactics are not yet included in the monitoring exercise or are
difficult to retrieve. In particular, YouTube pre- and mid-rolls, banners or sponsored social
media posts cannot be retrieved on the brands’ social media pages and thus cannot be checked
by the SROs through the current approach. Moreover, due to the large amount of personal
information consumers (including minors) share on social media and the use of cookies,

46

70
2019 EU Pledge Survey

advertisements can be specifically targeted and adapted to a certain audience. Another

attention point that remains critical for this evaluation is the use of social media “stories”. These
stories are in essence short, temporary messages that disappear from the influencers’ profile,
usually after a day. Since the evaluation of the SROs and the independent reviewers happens
at one point in time, the independent reviewers only checked the stories of that review period.
Hence, it is currently impossible to see and check these advertisements, even though young
children and parents daily encounter them when browsing the internet and social media. These
materials should be included in the monitoring.

• Influencer marketing should be disclosed correctly

Most influencers included in the sample did not primarily target children under 12. However,
teenagers are also a vulnerable target group and should not be misled. Many influencers did
not disclose their sponsored posts properly which makes it very difficult for children and
teenagers to critically process the post.

• Persuasiveness of brand characters

In many of the websites and profiles, branded characters stimulate the child-like character of
the site (animal or human-like characters). Because of this, no breach is officially coded in the
coding system (as branded characters are not included in the Pledge). However, the
independent reviewers believe that including these characters in the site makes the site
particularly appealing to young children. Accordingly, they again suggest that brands should try
to adjust these characters so that they appeal to older consumers instead of the young ones
(as several brands already do). These brand characters are often portrayed in a funny situation
or are designed to be liked by children. Brand equity characters are also marketing tools and
even more powerful ones for children under 12. For example, a study by McGale, Halford,
Harrold and Boyland (2016) showed that using a brand equity character on food packaging
evokes unhealthy food choices in children 10.

• A strong focus on parents is debatable

Some brands mainly use their websites and social media to convince parents of the suitability
of the product for their children. They often portray those parents together with their young
children. In this way, brands try to persuade the parents that their children would like the
products by adding textual and/or visual elements to the website and social media. Although
this is in agreement with the commitments of the EU Pledge, the independent reviewers make
a plea for a cautious use of such tactics. For instance, claims need to be put in such a way that
they are clear to parents and provide correct information that is fully comprehensible to them
and not misleading (e.g. ‘Product X will delight the little ones and satisfy the older ones’ or ‘Play
and learn together’). Additionally, adding recipes and pictures of children to websites or social
media pages, may make those pages also appealing to young children (even when the general
tone of voice and textual elements are mainly targeting parents). The independent reviewers
detected one influencer that used pictures of her child to promote products and brands

10McGale, L. S., Halford, J. C. G., Harrold, J. A., & Boyland, E. J. (2016). The influence of brand equity characters on children’s
food preferences and choices. The Journal of Pediatrics, 177, 33-38. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.06.025

47

71
2019 EU Pledge Survey

included in the Pledge. The posts in se are not specifically appealing to children, but the pictures
do clearly target parents of little children and make references to the joy the products bring to
children.

• Older posts/materials in breach still available

The independent reviewers found some websites and social media pages that contained posts
from before 2019 or older that were in breach. This content should be deleted, as children can
still access them. In addition, for some sites it was not possible to assess the recent content and
it remains unclear if they are still operational. When the independent reviewers checked the
global account, they noticed that these were frequently used and up to date. Accordingly, they
question the inclusion of the local social media pages in the monitoring exercise when no longer
used or updated.

48

72
2019 EU Pledge Survey

Table 1. Inter-coder reliability websites (Cohen’s Kappa)

Main questions of the website survey Cohen's Kappa % of a greement
Do the website or sections of the website, have an age-screening/parental
consent mechanism aimed at verifying the age of visitors before allowing Full
the access agreement 100%
Does the website feature licensed characters/tie-ins/celebrities (i.e.
celebrities or fictional characters which are not owned by the company) .91 96%
If yes, are the licensed characters/tie-ins/celebrities targeted primarily at
an under-12 audience .83 92%

If yes, are the licensed characters/tie-ins/celebrities used as means to

promote a food/beverage product to children under 12 .78 92%

Does the website feature any type of games and/or other entertainment
activities such as puzzles, card games, racing, recipes, colouring or activity
sheets, “Do it yourself” type of activities? etc.- .92 96%
If yes, are the games/entertainment activities designed for children
younger than 12 .73 84%
Does the website feature animations (i.e. cartoons, animations depicting
fantasy situations) and/or music/sound effects and/or videos .37 68%

If yes, are the animations and/or sound effects and/or video used designed
to appeal primarily to under-12s .33 60%

Does the website feature toys used as premiums/prizes to promote a

food/beverage product- Please don’t include cases where toys are an
inherent part of the food product? .52 84%

Are they designed to appeal primarily to children younger than 12 .43 80%
Taking into account your answers to all the previous questions and all the
aspects of a website’s design like language/text/navigation, do you think
that the website is clearly intended to be primarily appealing to children
under 12 * 96%

* Could not be calculated because one of the variables was constant.

49

73
2019 EU Pledge Survey

Table 2. Inter-coder reliability social media profiles (Cohen’s Kappa)

Cohen's % of
Main question of the Socia l Media Survey Ka ppa agreement

Is the content of the social media site accessible without

registration/logging in? * 92%
Is the language used on the social media platform clearly directed at
children under 12? .21 84%
Do you think the social media profile encourages the interaction
and/or the active participation of children under 12? .89 90%
Does the social media platform feature licensed characters/ movie tie-
ins/ celebrities (i.e. celebrities or fictional characters which are not
owned by the company, e.g. sports athletes, actors, celebrities, or
fictional characters linked to movies/entertainment, e.g. Shrek, Harry
Potter? .78 90%
Are the licensed characters/tie-ins/celebrities targeted primarily at an
under-12 audience? .63 82%
Does the social media profile feature any type of games and/or other
entertainment activities such as puzzles, card games, racing, recipes,
colouring or activity sheets, “Do it yourself” type of activities, apps,
etc.? .21 79%
Are the games/entertainment activities designed for children younger
than 12 (i.e. are they easy enough to be played/performed by children
younger than 12)? .24 82%
Does the social media profile feature videos/photos? .29 76%
Is the product featured in the videos/photos, i.e. are the videos/photos
used as means to promote a food/beverage product to children under
12? .32 68%
Does the social media profile feature contests/competitions? .55 79%
Are the contests/competitions used to appeal primarily to under-12s? .46 74%
Taking into account your answers to all the previous questions and all
the aspects of a social media profile, do you think that the profile is
clearly intended to be primarily appealing to children under 12? .39 82%

* Could not be calculated because one of the variables was constant.

50

74
2019 EU Pledge Survey

Table 3. Inter-coder reliability influencer profiles (Cohen’s Kappa)

Cohen's % of
Main question of the Influencer Survey Kappa agreement
Full
Is the food/beverage product non-compliant? agreement 100%
If the product is non-compliant, do you think the way it is advertised
by the influencer could be considered primarily appealing to children
under 12? * 90%
Are there any disclosures in the post/video (i.e. paid partnership with,
hashtags used by the influencer #ad, #sponsored, etc)? .196 55%
Does the influencer use any of the following techniques that appeal to
children under 12? -.071 85%
Do you think the influencer is targeting children under 12 in his/her Full
post/video? agreement 100%
Do you think the influencer is targeting parents of children under 12
in his/her posts/videos (indirectly addressing parents to buy unhealthy Full
products their children)? agreement 100%

* Could not be calculated because one of the variables was constant.

51

75
2019 EU Pledge Survey

Report compiled by

European Advertising Standards Alliance

26 Rue des Deux Eglises

1000 Brussels, Belgium
[email protected]
easa-alliance.org
52
@AdvertisingEASA

76