Many UK companies invest significant amounts in school programmes that range from donating goods for the school fete through to big ticket items like supporting School Breakfast Clubs (SBCs) and stumping up £2m to sponsor an Academy school. But is this money well spent, and by linking with education are companies making themselves soft targets? Our Executive Soapbox this month looks at this issue from a wider research-based perspective, but in this article we have focused on Kellogg’s who have supported a school breakfast club (SBC) programme run by the educational charity ContinYou, since 1997.
SBCs are an interesting idea because they link a number of key educational initiatives such as tackling obesity, social deprivation, improving behaviour and so on. Unfortunately, SBCs cost more money than the government is prepared to commit and so they really need the support of companies like Kellogg’s as well as charities, community organisations and others.
Recently Kellogg’s have come under attack, particularly in the media, from consumer groups who say that their involvement, and that of other food companies, is inappropriate in education.
The subtext of many of these claims seems to be that Kellogg’s have found an easy marketing channel through which to promote and distribute what activists often erroneously label junk food. This must be frustrating for Kellogg’s who are a long-term supporter of the SBC programmes and who don’t mandate that SBCs serve their products.
Recently the Schools Minister Jim Knight said that he was happy for sponsors to be involved in SBCs provided they didn’t sell junk food.
The problem for Kellogg’s falls into three parts. First, should they limit the types of their products able to be sold in SBCs and is this actually possible? Second, the equivocal support from the DfES and government leaves sponsors very exposed to criticism. Third, the political climate is changing in relation to advertising and marketing directed at children.
According to Kellogg’s, their products are the most popular in SBCs simply because they are the market leader. This sounds reasonable, but if Kellogg’s want to avoid criticism from anti-obesity campaigners then they really should try to encourage SBCs to provide their healthiest cereals (i.e. not Coco Pops). This is even more important for the fast-growing breakfast bar (cereal, muesli and breakfast) sector. A recent study by Choice magazine found many of these to be as bad (if not worse) than many chocolate bars having up to 20% sugar and levels of fat comparable to a packet of crisps.
When it comes to sponsorship and commercial support of programmes like SBCs, the unfortunate reality is that companies involved cannot rely on any sort of support from the DfES or their proxies like the School Food Trust. This is a serious downside to getting involved in education because it means sponsors stump up the money for the programme and then have to carry the burden and cost of justifying their involvement when complaints arise. While sponsors don’t expect shoulder-to-shoulder support like that the I.O.C. provides for Olympic sponsors, they should get some sort of media and crisis management support. Without this (as is the case now) the risk to a sponsor’s reputation is multiplied, making justifying educational sponsorship difficult from a risk-management perspective. And don’t forget these are not piffling amounts: an Academy School sponsorship is £2m and Kellogg’s have probably invested at least as much in SBCs since 1997.
Next comes the shifting regulatory sands which govern marketing to children. OfCOM is due to submit its recommendations to the government about this topic by November and those interested in which way the political winds are blowing only have to watch Tony Blair on Jamie’s School Dinners saying that that he will review self-regulation in 12 months and, if necessary, impose statutory changes. Is this likely? Yes, because Mr Blair won’t be PM in a year and coming down hard on advertisers, especially those who can be smeared as purveyors of junk food, will be popular with voters and backbenchers. For those hoping for a better run under David Cameron and Labour Lite (the new caring, sharing Tories), there is little succour - at their recent conference, a motion to ban all advertising to under-12s received 52% support.
These factors make education an uncertain environment for companies like Kellogg’s, no matter how well-intentioned their motives. It also poses the question, should you sponsor someone else’s existing programme (giving credibility and third party endorsement) or set up and manage your own programme (giving greater control and closer brand alignment)? If the DfES and the government are serious about wanting educational sponsorship and direct support from major private sector companies then they need to become far more professional and pragmatic. If they don’t, the current boom in all forms of educational sponsorship will slow to a trickle or be directed into programmes with a closer fit to sponsors’ business needs but not necessarily those of schools or students.
